Leaderboard

I am afraid they might be assembled in a dry air or nitrogen glove box otherwise you would always have condensation.

All of these diopters would be sealed using o-rings I would guess, so it's possible a minute amount of water has entered - probably just a trace amount. If it's water vapor condensing then it should go away if you warm up the diopter a little. Of course it will come back when it cools off but it proves it is likely to be water vapour. Regardless I think taking it apart and replacing o-rings would be required. You would need a tool to remove the retaining ring and be able to source replacement o-rings to fix it.

For those wanting to see the news page including a video with Alex and Matthew discussing the strobe here is a link: https://www.retra-uwt.com/products/retra-maxi?srsltid=AfmBOorr_9G-QMUsgogETlI04k5pbBl880_aCycwoIofkEd05Yeksar6

Looks like Retra is finally, about 13 months later, going to ship the Maxi strobe. Retra UWTRetra Maxi Underwater StrobeORDER NOW AND SECURE EXCLUSIVE PRICING ON THE RETRA MAXI WITH THE VIDEO LIGHT - AVAILABLE ONLY UNTIL DECEMBER 20TH. NOW SHIPPING! Current dispatch time is approximately 2 to 3 weeks. If you have a divPreviously had straight xenon flash elements, now has a circular tube Previously advertised it at $880 with the 6000 lumen video light, now it's $1250 The Backscatter HF-1 was previously $800 or 850, now it's $999 The Maxi is also available without the video light for $1100 Backscatter added the Atom strobe without a video light for $800 It's great to see Retra finally getting to market with a faster strobe with a modern lithium-ion battery source at a lower price point than the ridiculous Pro Max II's at $1969 with the required boosters. Also nice to see that they decided to launch with their traditional circular flash tubes, hopefully getting closer to the Retra style output. However, they seem have given up on competing on price with Backscatter. At least they priced it in the same ballpark as the HF-1. I'll be curious to see some real-world reviews of these new strobes and how they compare to the Pro Max II's and HF-1s. I'll bet there is going to be some buyer's remorse from the Pro Max II early adopters.

Hello, as a user of a Canon R5 and a newcomer here in the forum (though I've been with wetpixel for many years), I'm currently switching from Seacam to Nauticam and my main question is about wide-angle - what else 😁. For many years I photographed with the Canon EF 8-15/4 (often in combination with a Kenko 1.4x TC) behind a superdome or the small fisheye macro port (CFWA). Now I would like to photograph with even better corner performance and more compact dimensions in the future, and therefore I was considering the Nauticam WACP-C. Unfortunately, I can't find any informative reviews and/or images online about the best(!) camera/lens combination for Canon FF mirrorless cameras. The RF 24-50 is recommended, but I'd like to know if, for example, the Canon RF 15-30 STM might offer better image quality (it only has 85° at the long end), or if an older adapted EF lens (e.g., the 28-80) would be advisable (it has 54° at the long end compared to the RF 24-50's 81°, so it would be much more versatile). Or would I ultimately achieve comparable image quality with my old 8-15/4 lens in combination with the Kenko 1.4x TC? I'd probably have to stop down significantly more to avoid corner softness, even behind a super dome. I also read here in the forum about the combination of the EF 8-15/4 with a 2x TC on a Sony, but I don't know if that works with Canon. I know that the WACP-1 has up to 1 stop better image quality than the WACP-C (probably only visible in the corners), but the WACP-1 is simply too heavy - and a little bit too expensive for me as well. Currently, I only own a Nauticam 8.5" Acrylic Dome Port (SKU # 18802) that came with the 2nd hand housing, which I could use with my Canon 8-15/4. However, I don't know if the image quality would be acceptable. And btw: is there a WA lens recommended to the 8.5" Acrylic Dome? Or does anyone have completely different considerations regarding excellent WA IQ? Btw: I own a RF 14-35/4 and still have the EF 8-15/4, of course. I'll definitely buy a Super Dome later at least for split or wreck shots... well, and I read here in the forum that a 140mm Nauticam dome is hardly recommended for the 8-15/4. I would be grateful for any helpful answers! Best regards, Wahrmut

Hello all, I have a very nice AOI UCL-05 LF +6 diopter (the old model), which I use a lot as it's way sharper than the Inon UCL-165 I used before. However, some faint traces have appeared, and seem to be inside the unit. I first noticed them underwater. I'm guessing this means something is failing, maybe the retaining ring? Can anything be done in this situation? It's an old model, and I'm now in Japan so sending it back to a dealer seems to be difficult. Thanks! Ben

Thanks Chris - I haven't tried warming it up a little, but will to see if it evolves. Servicing might prove difficult for this model I think. Yes that's what I'm afraid of. Not sure if it's actually possible to fix such an issue. I wrote to AOI, we'll see what they say.

There's nothing you can do until a proper housing is available. Take a look at the last comments in this thread for the X5. Even the original "basic" case didn't solve the stitching issue. And I'm sure it depends on FW too. https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2592-insta360-x5-underwater/

Sure, that sounds interesting! I'd love to give them a try and share a review. I will send you a message on the subject. Thanks for the opportunity. The top image is the Pro Max II? I think I can see the booster. It looks like it has a slightly broader spread and a warmer color temperature.

Hi Dave, would you be interested in doing an independent review? I think Matt can send you his pair when he is not using them. Please send me a message and we will work out the details. The Maxi strobe is optimized for high GN and lithium performance instead of the refined light quality and compact size of our Pro series strobes. There are obvious differences in the light they produce, comparison below. The Maxi reaches about 80% of the light quality that our Pro series strobes offer.

Yes, but they can corrode and they lose tension over time, I would still try and source them if possible.

There have been various posts talking about the pros and cons of the various combinations of lenses and Nauticam wet optics as well as comparing performance of rectilinear lenses behind various domes. Few points you might consider: The recommended dome for the Canon 8-15 in Nauticam is the 140mm dome. Fisheyes are much less sensitive to dome size compared to rectilinear lenses and smaller dome sizes help with getting closer to take CFWA shots. You can even use the 100mm Zen dome with the 8-15, though corner quality might take a small hit. There is an extensive set of tests of various Canon optics in this post: It tests the Canon 24-50 behind the WWL and doesn't have good things to say about it. The Nikon 24-50/WWL-C combination is generally rated quite well, however the Canon 24-50 kit lens seems to be significantly poorer in optical quality. Now this is with the WWL-C, however I recall other posts stating there is not much to pick between the WWL and WACP-C with other lenses. Bear in mind too that the 24-50 needs to zoom into 28mm to remove vignetting with the WWL-1 - the WWL-C is designed for 24mm lenses. Rectilinear lenses generally require big domes, though some of the newer lenses that focus much closer work well with the 180mm dome. They lack the barrel distortion which enlarges the subject in the centre making fisheye images pop. On the subject of teleconverters with the Canon 8-15 you mention the Sony 1.4x/2x with the Canon 8-15, these work because they place the Metabones adapter between the teleconverter and the 8-15. Optical quality is better than using the Kenko 1.4x. It needs this order of assembly as the nose of the 1.4x fits inside the the empty spacer of the Metabones adapter. In this case the metabones acts like a 22mm spacer. In theory you could use the a RF 1.4x- Canon RF-EF -Canon 8-15, but the RF-EF won't work with an RF 1.4x. In theory again a Canon RF-EF-Canon EF 1.4x- aftermarket EF 12mm or 20mm extension tube- Canon 8-15 might work, but you'd need to test it. In general I would say the Canon 8-15 is an exceptionally sharp lens and very hard to beat behind a dome as fisheyes naturally work well behind domes and is a great solution if you don't need extra reach. The last point is that comparing diagonal field of view is a little misleading - you normally don't place subjects on the diagonal and fisheye lenses have the most stretching of the field in the corners. The WACP/WWL is like a zoomed in fisheye lens in terms of barrel distortion present. The horizontal field of a 180° (nominal) diagonal fisheye is about 144° while a WWL with 130° diagonal field has about a 106° horizontal field. The 8-15 is reported to achieve 175° diagonal field. This table compares horizontal and diagonal fields: Horizontal Diagonal Rect Equiv 15mm fisheye 141 175 4.5 15mm x 1.4 97 118 16 WACP at 28mm 106 130 13.5 WACP at 80mm 44.7 54 42 The Rectilinear equivalent is the focal length of a rectilinear lens with the same horizontal field. You can compare the field you would get from a Canon 8-15 with 14mm FF equivalent rectilinear here, it's on m43 sensor so the comparison is the 8-15 at 8mm and the 7-14 at 7mm. This is equivalent to the 8-15 at 15mm and 14mm rectilinear on full frame.

We are currently using the Sony A6700 with Nauticam housing/wide angle lens. A couple Sola video lights gives us good quality for court purposes.

Very neat ! I was interested in a loupedeck but the eye watering price pushed me to go open source on this one. I bought a MIDI controller and used Midi2LR to program it! works very neatly :) PetaPixelGoing Open Source to Make Your Own Loupedeck AlternativeThere is an extremely talented landscape photographer called Thomas Heaton whose YouTube videos I find very instructive and entertaining. Recently he

I had a dual pane exterior window in my flat lose its integrity some years ago. I didn’t bother with it for years as the condensation dried and calcified. When I finally took it apart, after I tired of looking through fogged glass, it was too late to save.