Christian K

Will most likely demand a large dome. The 122 degrees is pretty close to the wet lenses 130, so that would be a good comparison.

Wet lenses was a game changer for me as a Nikon DX shooter since 20 years. Was very reluctant towards FF because of all reasons already mentioned, but mainly for the lack of good rectilinear WA options. They all needed big ass domes and very expensive high end glass was disappointing once put behind that big ass dome and brought UW. APS-C was much better in that aspect. So I was about to swap brand when a fellow shooter and distributor of housings convinced me to go FF with wet lenses. Made it possible to continue shooting Nikon too. Not that is was all that important, but old habits die hard I guess.

Isotta looks sweet and kind of remind me of now dismantled Hugyfot, which has been my choice of housing. But we have no Isotta dealers in Scandinavia. Call me old fashioned, but I like to have someone close for support, which I have with Nauticam. The Z6III is a pretty awesome 25 MP camera with incredible AF and the latest tech. I struggle with motivating ”the need” for the extra MP performance or reason for me to pay € 1500 more for a larger Z8. Z6III with Nauticam, a small port and a wet lens will be a pretty swift kit delivering top notch in every aspect (video too—which I haven’t really considered or really, weighed on that much). So the dice is rolled. I ordered a Z6III Nauticam housing with a macroport and the wet lens already. 😊 Cheers.

That is what I (and my sad wallet) has concluded.

I’m with you. Isotta seem nice, have no experience from them tho and there are no dealers in Scandinavia—however, buying a brand new alu housing and gear to make wet optics to work for a 10 year old camera … I don’t know. The Nauti z6III is 2.7 kgs and the camera body 6xx grams (a couple of hundred grams lighter than D500). So 3.3ish kgs together. Is the Isotta D500 a lot lighter? I’m looking for a good second hand housing too, but no luck so far and time is running out for me. I’m consulting a good UW photographer here in Sweden too and he say wet optics hands down. The Z24-50 might not be the a great lens comparatively (tests show its pretty sharp tho), but look at the Nikkor 14-24… fantastic lens. Sheit UW. There are so much happening when we put it behind a dome and uw so it’s not always an easy comparison lens to lens. Appreciate your feedback and the time you put in to answer Chris! Thank you.

TVC:s.

Cheers David. Director from Sweden here. Welcome.

Well familiar with the lenses, have been shooting the Tokina 10-17 for many years (sold) and the Nikon 10.5 as well as Sigma 10-20 (a favorite) on DX. Still own them. Wide rectilinear 80% and FE 20% would be a rough estimate of what I’m using. https://www.fotosidan.se/gallery/view.htm?ID=178278 For me FE and WA are very different even if they sometime share FoV. Won’t get a wet FE but will be able to get a FE and a lighter/smaller dome eventually. I very much doubt there are any as swift and sharp rectilinear WA solutions in a dome as the 24-50 kit lins and wet optics, APCs or FF, but I'd be happy to learn otherwise :)

Me too looked for second hand with no luck.

That was a scenario I speculated in too, but I’m now certain I want to move to wet optics. And buying a brand new alu housing for a D500… as good as it is, it’s still 10 year old digital tech. Perhaps if they’d be able to discount it, I’d consider that route. Paying full price, wet optics is a must for my next rig and camera relatively modern (don’t need latest and greatest).

Wet optics! Huge domes (and some other things like lack of good rectilinear wide solutions) have discouraged me from FF and had me thinking to continue with DX / APSC. Image quality certainly good enough. But Nikon makes it difficult if you want something a bit more serious. A used D500 would certainly be a good option (and my first idea), but no Nauticam / wet optics afaik. Z6III is stretching it. Z7 II a tiny more. Z8 is another €1500. Nauti z6III or Z7II €600-800 less. So €2000+ less.

Yes. Was looking into getting a second hand D500, since I come from D200 and D300. Already have lenses. But … I am now set on wet optics after some research. So a Nauticam housing. Looked at the little housing for the new DX z50II, but it has no viewfinder which might be a deal breaker for me. So tbh FF in itself not what I was looking for necessarily. But I’m more and more likely going to go that route. Have been looking at size/weight which is a concern and important to me and none of those mirrorless (z6 or 7+nauticam) FF set-ups seem to be bulkier and heavier than what I have been schlepping around for years. Already have strobes, cables … but am stretching my budget … yes.

Looking at getting a Nikon with a Nauticam. The new z6III (24 mp) costs about the same as the older z7II (45 mp)—roughly half of a z8. Nauticam houses cost pretty much the same. I understand z6III is better for video, which I don’t care too much about. z6IIII (haven’t had it in my hand) seem a tad smaller and lighter. Housing a tad smaller and lighter. Like that a lot. Then 45 mp is more. Not sure how usable it will be UW. But still …

Looking at getting this housing/set-up or perhaps the Nikon version z50ii. I only miss a fish-eye alternative. And also need to adapt to using a the screen instead of an optical viewfinder….

I have a question to all of you shooting newer mirrorless cameras. Do you use the viewfinder or the screen to frame and focus? Anyone who have ”moved” from one behavior to another? What’s your thoughts and comments? My eyes are getting a little worse and I’m contemplating if an alternative to getting an expensive viewfinder is re-learning and use the screen. Cheers!