bghazzal

Interesting - I've heard that it was lighter, cheaper than the MFO3 and that it has a flat front element vs. a more concave one for the MFO3, but hadn't heard anything about sharpness or AF improvements of one over the other

Do keep in mind that I only shoot video - AF on the 50mm AF might be workeable for stills, but not really for video, unless shooting manual on static subjects. Video AF is a different beast altogether. Super slow AF aquisition is a no-go, even with backbutton focus for "manual AF", as you need it to snap back into focus as quickly as possible.

I've now been using the MFO-3 with the Sony 100mm macro f2.8 GM on the A7SIII for video, and it works great. I was warned that it could cause issues with the lens stabilisation when shooting video, so I turned OSS off on the 100mm and haven't seen any weirdness in the footage. Haven't tried it with OSS on, if anyone has a chance to do it without losing a dive, would love to know. It's a fantastic tool, mainly because, as others have pointed out, Sony doesn't have a solid 50/60mm macro lens with workable AF. It's also a great option for people like me who primarily shoot macro and supermacro with a default 90mm or 100mm lens, but occasionally want access to a more medium field of view, rather than use a wider lens and use diopters for occasional macro. Combined with a snappy lens like the Sony 100mm, video AF works great, even on an ageing system like the A7SIII, and image quality is excellent (much better than I expected). I'm using it primarily in blackwater like situations (shore-based bonfire dives), and it's much more practical than the 100mm, basically the ideal baseline fov. Reduced minimum focus distance is also very nice! The main downside so far is the overall length. The 100mm port + MFO-3 combination becomes something of a canon-like contraption... That's probably less of an issue for stills with powerful strobe lighting, but for our weaker video lights it means longer, more outstretched arms to get the light where it's needed. And this outstretched lighting position is an issue when a BW subject decides to come close to the glass, which is fine focus wise but requires serious light repositioning... The other downside is protecting that large front element. The Nauticam rubber cap seems to have been designed to get lost underwater, and is just not practical as is. I have my MFO-3 mounted on a triple flip and currently keep a large neoprene pouch over it. I think there have also been a few 3D-printed caps with lanyards floating around. cheers

So it's confirmed... that's really not great news for UW applications, especially for wide-angle.

Thanks. I find HLG3 with a Rec.709 colour gamut (instead of Rec.2020, since I don't deliver in HDR) works great so far. No colour space conversion is needed other than the automatic HDR-to-SDR mapping, and there's plenty of headroom for grading. I have set a custom WB to 4900K, which is what is required with my mixed light setups after testing. This is a recent HLG-3 Rec709 clip, shot on a murky bonfire dive, on the Sony 100mm macro with the MFO-3: I'm definitely saving S-LOG 3 for ambient light work, or more precisely mixed lighting.

That's great, thanks - now I have a new DIY project!

Yes, the format is really impressive. I was just pointing out that, even with the highest compression, the files are still about five times larger than what I currently get from my A7S III. That's already a significant jump in storage requirements. As tempting as RAW is, coming back from each dive with 100–200 GB of footage on average is quite something to manage, especially when diving frequently. Saved for special projects I guess.

I would love to see a picture of that contraption, as I also now shoot on an A7SIII and also use a partial Ultralight sled. I've been shooting in artificial light but it woulds way more practical than stretching a whibal card out with one arm like I used to on the previous camera. which comes at a price of a minimum of 65-80 GB of data for 10 minutes of footage in the lightest X-OCN LT 4k 60fps....

One thing to look out for is that, for regular users (say, diving more than once a week), Weefine and Kraken products are indeed well made and do work well (despite some design quirks like button ergonomics), but unfortunately they do not seem to last very long. I've had repeated issues with Kraken Hydras, as have a lot of other users I've met, and unfortunately they are not really reliable in the long run.The first year or year and a half is fine, but after that repeated button issues, electronics issues, and leaks are quite common. It's as if the material used for some parts is just not resistant enough for regular underwater use. And this is comming from someone who does everything he can to maintain his equipment. Seafrogs product seem very similar in design, but in a slightly lower quality tier from what I've seen, so this could be even worse. It's annoying because I really like Kraken and Weefine products, and the price is acceptable, but if you have to factor in a longevity/reliability of under two years, pricing becomes unviable unless you're sponsored by them for replacements.

As an update, I now have 2 Wurkkos DL40 for bonfire diving (I wanted beam lights to point out, Japanese "light trap" style). Quality is ok, as is power/battery life (they use two 26650 batteries per light). I contacted Wurkkos to buy from them directly but they were unable to match Wurkkos Aliexpress prices shipped. This seems to be a constant with Chinese brands btw, the "official store" on Aliexpress (eg. Seafrog) is cheaper shipped than the manufacturer's website price / direct. We'll see how long they last.

I'd be happy to but unfortunately I only shoot video, so I'm probably not the ideal tester. I could only submit image captures from video clips, rather than actual pics.

Last year, I managed to get samples of 80 kg/m³ and 100 kg/m³ density PVC foam, rated to reliably withstand pressures of 0.6 MPa. They work great, but sourcing this type of material in Japan was a nightmare (mine eventually came from Chinese manufacturers instead, and that was not easy). I gave up on fishing floats, as it was impossible to find proper technical specifications locally. I spent a lot of time searching on AliExpress and Alibaba, but without success. I tried shipyards and marine supplies, no luck. Given the value of this kind of material for underwater imaging applications, it would be great to share supplier information, especially from companies willing to ship non-industrial quantities internationally. Given the links above, it seems to be easier to source in the EU somehow.

As I mentioned here I got largely over 2 hours of continuous runtime with the Weefine WED-5 Pro HD with the monitor at 30% display brightness. This is in 26° water with a new 21700 battery, at 1080p HDMI output. Official specs give 90 minutes, but I suspect this is at a higher brightness. At 3200 nits, it's very bright and 30% was fine for Okinawan sunshine in the shallows. cheers

Thanks! we do get a lot of pigmy squid here, but there's also a strong possibility that this is a blue-ring octopus paralarva. It's a very tricky subject as most cephalopod paralavae haven't been ID'ed properly yet

In Japan, for a Mexico visit an individual would need to make a refundable cash deposit of roughly 50% of the value of the equipment for an ATA Carnet if they do not qualify for JCAA's guarantee scheme criteria 😅 The carnet itself isn't that bad - around €200 for €20,000 worth of equipment - but that would mean a €10,000 refundable deposit! I think Mexico must be one of the only countries in the world to tax personal diving and imaging equipment brought in by recreational diving tourists in this way. ¡Chingón!