bghazzal

Yes, absolutely. Smartphones are vastly bigger in volume and a huge amount of imaging technology research is now clearly driven by the smartphone market. Where it's a little weak in the knees is to use this fact to predict that the dedicated cameras will effectively disappear fast. It seems to me the market is evolving into something rather different: smartphones dominate general-purpose photography, while dedicated cameras survive - and in some segments are actually growing again ( built-in-lens camera shipments is forecast to grow by 13.6% this year for instance by Japan's Camera & Imaging Products Association) - because they offer things a phone can't, despite being a cumbersome dedicated tools. And then we also have action cams on the video front, which in a way seem to be mutating into some high end neo-camcorder function. I guess it's more about different tools for different purposes, and this makes predictions a little more complicated as society, users and uses evolve as well. Video, as a medium rather than a format, has little to do now with what it was 20, even 10 years ago. And we see weird things in the music sector as well. I suppose the lesson is that predicting market dominance is easier than predicting actual market extinction.

still remember a couple of years ago, when compact cameras were pronounced dead and buried for good in one such report - and of course, in our cozy forum pages. 😁😁😁 Isn’t 2026 the year we were all supposed to be shooting underwater on our phones, BTW? 😁

Hi Tino I've just have this printed in China (JLCPCB) but not sure how it works. On my print, the larger ring slips off the smaller retainer ring - did you glue it on? Or maybe I'm mounting it wrong / the material used. thanks! EDIT - after trying multiple combination I managed to make it click on somehow, but not sure if this is the "correct" way, as it looks a little different from your pic:

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) :