bghazzal

Yes, very interesting thought. On quite a lot of cameras you do need to fill the WB calibration square/rectangle completely to get an accurate balance, which is why a larger slate at arm's length is quite common. I really like this contraption here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3745-sony-fx5-released/#findComment-26786 There were multiple WB threads on Wetpixel back in the heydays of underwater video, and yes, sand usually works quite well as it covers a large enough area for calibration. But it also depends on the type of sand. I've had very mixed results with brown/muddy sand, and black volcanic sand is also a no-go. Another recommendation that came up a lot, especially from Nick Hope who did a lot of testing at the time, was using the palm of your hand as a WB reference.

I can't help with the question, but the Kraken Hydras have auto on-off and can be connected with an optical fiber cable or just use light from the strobes. I have the discontinued 1500, and it's powered by a standard 21700 battery. https://krakensports.ca/product/hydra-1800wsr/

Very interesting product, thanks Chris. The mount plate is too large for my NA-A1 housing (max length is 77mm i order to close the housing), but this is a brilliant idea. The Anker Nano is build around a 21700 cell, but I'm looking into custom-made dual 18650 battery packs now, for a non-autoshutoff solution. If anyone is interested in using the space above the hotshoe in the Nauticam A1 housing, main size restriction is a 77mm length, 40mm width and a roughly 25mm height.

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)

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.

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.

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

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

To follow-up on my previous interrogations, since I last posted in this thread I now shoot a Sony A7SIII which has... usable AF - however it does not offer tracking AF underwater, a major caveat for anyone considering this camera for video. On the A7SIII, tracking AF is activated by touching the screen or, and this is the most frustrating part - by assigning a button FOR STILLS ONLY - the toggle AF tracking on/off button is not available in video mode on the A7SIII, unlike on newer models like the A6700. Super frustrating, but that's life. Animal face recognition AF is also not available in video mode, it works for stills only - and who shoots stills on the A7SIII ?! 😂 That said, AF is usable, especially "manual AF", where you manually trigger the AF to acquire focus through back-button focus (I have mine mapped to the top thumb lever on the NA-A1 housing, with the switch between AF and MF mode on the bottom lever). It's something I had on the LX10, and a must for most UW video applications in my opinion. Manual AF aquisition can be done in manual mode (in which case focus is locked after acquisition and trigger release) or in actual AF-C mode (where the backbutton manually forces the camera to refocus). Both these modes are super useful, manual mode for slow-moving static subjects and AF mode for faster action (blackwater for instance). I use peaking, which is available both on the camera screen and on the monitor (Sony cameras do not transmit focus peaking or zebra data through HDMI, so it has to be a monitor function), and it's fine. Blackwater video is the trickiest of course, as you're tracking small, extremely rapid subjects moving in 3D in the water column. This really pushes AF performance, but luckily the A7SIII's AF (refocusing) is fast, especially coupled with a newer lens like the 100mm macro. I acquire focus manually (back-button AF) and then follow the subject, trying to work/help the AF have the time to make the micro-adjustments needed to keep it in focus. On the LX10, I did this in MF and just followed with peaking after aquisition (elbow-focus...) - now I can trust, to a certain degree, the camera to adjust which is great. When it loses track, I just refocus manually. Shooting in 60fps helps, as does 120fps in some cases for very jittery critters. True manual focus I've only used for standard macro, after the usual manual AF acquisition, to tweak the focus point. The NA-A1 housing has a workable focus knob on the left side, which is great for micro-adjustments, using peaking, but this is for slow-moving or static subjects, say refocusing on a nudibranch, or the eyes of a critter... it's not perfect but usuable for this. For me, the most useful tools by far are manually triggered AF (back-button focus for manual AF acquisition, in both manual and AF modes) as well as peaking, which I have set to high and red. I've never tried a cinecam housing with actual cinema focus knobs - this must be great for blue-chip documentary-style focus pulls and reveals, but my shooting circumstances are much more run-and-gun as a rule, and I wouldn't trust the focus knob enough for this kind of approach. cheers

Mainly 4cm less minimal focus distance, which is nice to have when critters move in close to the lens - it also acts like a limiter (which is interesting because it's best to turn of the lens focus limiter for the MFO3 as well )- it's basically my default rather than the bare 100mm lens - I haven't actually done tests comparing the 100mm with and without, but I did test the MFO1 before I changed to the A7SIII rig, on a 1" sensor LX10 compact and it was really impressive for blackwater: Better image quality (crisper footage), snappier AF (I was shooting in manual with back button focus, but focus acquisition was really faster) and the number of focus points visible in focus peaking increased a lot. It was like an AF update pretty much, and the footage was really improved. So I just kept using it on the 100mm when I switched, trusting that it would probably do good things (though the 100mm is already great by itself) Yes, I also use it for standard macro dives. There is a slight increase in magnification, but otherwise you don't really notice it as much. This is what I had measured on land in terms of working distance when it arrived: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1810-nauticam-newest-mfo-1/page/4/#findComment-26197

I only do video, not stills, but use the 100mm and MFO3 for blackwater-like shooting (bonfire dives, hovering in the water column at night). My go-to setup on the A7SIII is the 100mm, MFO1 and MFO3 - I actually have a triple-flip, which I like for having the option to add a diopter for super macro for regular macro dives, but actually only use two lenses for blackwater-type shooting, as it's very difficult to find subjects static enough to go beyond the magnification given by the 100mm + MFO1 combo, and 80% of the footage is shot with the MFO3. As Dave mentioned, the 90mm is fine (I chose the 100mm as it does have some advantages for video AF) - however, a double-flip could be handy with these lenses, so you have more options than MFO3 or the bare lens (diopters for super macro or MFO1)

Yeah, all good here, thanks - Okinawa's really built for typhoons, with most places having a fortress-like concrete based brutalist architectural design. Typhoon 13 / Dolphin was supposed to be a strong one, so we really bunkered up, but it just turned out to be very long (3 days) and strange. The north of main island (Nago) was hit harder, apparently, but we just had strong winds, no power cuts, which is the main issue here. I still see unusual swell from the window as I type this today. Just one note: typhoons started early (June), and the direction is a little unusual. There's also a strong El Niño on top of the usual climate breakdown, so everything is combining to give us extreme weather for the next couple of years, and probably a few monster typhoons. Typhoon season is typically June to October in Japan (especially Okinawa, Kyushu, Shikoku and Honshu's Pacific coast, where Mikomoto is), with late-season typhoons being stronger than earlier ones, so plan accordingly. Current typhoon situation this morning (it's like a pinball machine) :

The locked position is sufficient to hold the MFO3, CMC1 and MFO1 in this position underwater. I enter the water with the lenses in this position as well. It's the same design as on standard single and dual Nauticam flips, and I don't think users are having issues with the lenses flapping around, unless the flip gets old perhaps.

Yes, it has a "locked" position, like this: All the other positions are not locked in place, but this is a sort of retaining position, and is quite sturdy.

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)

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.