Christian K

Yeah, I’m not sure the WACP route will yield any gains that are really worth it for me compared to the WWL. Maybe if I start shooting at home in the Baltic Sea regularly… that does not involve flights.

I looked into using the z24/1.8 with the wwl-c a while ago and this was the issue. Front element cause vignetting.

You wanted a specific example. I gave you one that many have wrestled with. The wet optics inme, even adding slight more curvature, produce straighter lines than a fisheye (comparing to Tokina 10-17) on a comparable FoV, if we're talking apples and oranges. So inmo a better alternative if that's what you're looking for in your images. And much sharper across than an any FF rectilinear lens behind a domeport I've seen, tried or heard of. If you have an example (not fisheye) please share it. I'd be very interested in what @Dave_Hicks finds out in Gods Pocket, mostly regarding the rectilinearness of his 8-15+tc compared to the WWL-C paired with the 24-50. EDIT. I probably need to get a 8-15 anyways, unless a z FE magically appears in 6-7 months. I wish you good luck Adventurer and happy dives in your future adventures.

Specific case, the classic Nikon 14-24/2.8 G ED full frame rectilinear zoom. DXOMARKNikon Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED review: A very impres...Introduced in 2007 alongside the AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED and Nikon’s first full-frame DSLR – the 12-megapixel Nikon D3 – this lens was a first of its kind and set new standards for image qualityA bit old but still a fantastic piece of glass that produce very sharp images. On land. Put it behind a nice dome and dunk it––meh. Many have tried. And oh how the entire underwater photo community wanted it to work. Lots of money and energy spent. Measuring and calculating. I think your frustration with this, whatever it is, isn't going to get you anywhere productive. Of course a lens does not magically get better when you put it behind some other glass, be it a dome or another optic (which a dome also is) and then go underwater. They all get worse. But it's the end result that counts when all things are added in. Light. Distances. Angles. Ability to handle and get the rig in a favorable position. To even be able to transport it to where the action is. It all needs to be in the equation. One undeniable fact is that quite a few of the guys and gals making the most impressive UW images today use wet optics. Call them idiots if you like. I'd rather listen to them and pick up some advice.

Yeah, that sounds logical. Haven’t gone full scientist on this. In my short but sweet experience with Nauticam wet optics, comparing to 20+ years of domes with Tokina 10-17, Nikon 10.5, 10-24, Sigma 10-20 and a few others, it looks straighter (and obviously wider than a recti 10 with DX) to my eye at the wide end. But for sure, some curvature must be produced by the wet lens. Not sure if rectifying a fisheye with a diopter will be as good, maybe, but a little doubtful. Inme the wwl:s works great and looks good in the real world, inmo. Lots sharper all across than the any FF rectilinears behind huge crystal domes, and very easy and versatile to use. At the end of the day we shoot a system containing several pieces. Some really great lenses that are sharp as hell has proven to be very, very difficult to use UW because of that. Just focusing on the lens and assume that it is always best to buy the sharpest lens and build your system from that might not be the best idea for UW photography, inme. It’s fun to try new things, I encourage that. But it’s sometimes frustrating and can get very expensive. With poor results. So the premise of this thread is certainly true, but perhaps many times irrelevant for UW photographers.

Center has never been a problem, it’s the overall image sharpness inme. One can (rightly so in many cases) argue that corners aren’t really that important, but in many cases they have been really awful even with super expensive top glass behind the biggest and nicest domes. I don’t know if the Sony lens you refer to has this acclaimed issue you mention or what effect it has in the real world, haven’t used it. I know there’s one good Sony 28-70, might not be the kit lens. Nikons z24-50 is certainly surprisingly sharp. I’ve used it. My only complaint would be its plastic and cheap feel feel. Here’s a test: https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24-50mm-f4-6-3-review/4/

There are some surprisingly great kit lenses out there (and one really bad I hear). Personally I see rectilinear optics as a different breed to fisheyes. Sometimes you might prefer the fisheye distortion, sometimes not. What the ”new” development of wet optics has done, inmo, is pushing the IQ of rectilinear lenses to a new level, comparable to what we previously only have seen in fisheyes for UW. And it’s mostly pronounced in FF systems, that are less forgiving compared to smaller sensors.

Complement visually. Not to bring on the same dive. But when you mention it… Mainly interested in impressions and experiences from using z105+MFO3.

So, who's shooting Nikon z 105 with the MFO 3? I'm looking at that set-up as a travel complement to z24-50+WWL-C. Any input and feedback is very welcome.

I ”roll” with my camera in my lap. One hand on strap, one on camera. I also giant stride with my camera in hand, have perfected technique to hold it as low/close to the surface as I can and then lift it as I jump and giving it a gentle entry. Has worked perfectly for me. YMMV.

Went on her for a week in March 13-21. They run a pretty tight show, which is needed because the boat take 26 guests. We were 24 divided into three groups. The trip was called ’sharktastic’ and focused on channel dives in S Male, Vaavu and Meemu atoll. A few dives in N Male as well. From a photographic perspective, not a very productive trip which I knew beforehand. We did see a lot of reef sharks (grey, wt, bt), nurse sharks as well as eagle rays and a rare sighting of scalloped hammerheads (group) off Foteyo kandu in the blue, but they all keep their distance (besides the nurse sharks) making it difficult on this type of dives with a lot of hooking in. Nice sightings nevertheless. Had a manta ray passing by on one dive and we also did an extra day with two dives on shark tank in Male after the liveaboard, where we had a quite big tiger shark, lemon sharks and a shovel nosed ray. Went with Ocean Warrior dive centre in N Male for shark tank and they do not use bait, which many others do. So no sharks close enough for any good photos. But very good local dive center that arranged a larger rinse tank especially for me on their boat. Good and relaxed guide who’s name escapes me—young Maldivian guy. Emperor Voyager is what it is. A solid liveaboard that works pretty ok for someone shooting/videoing. Spacious dive dhoni with a fairly big rinse tank. Would be too small if there had been 3-4 ff rigs at once though, I was the only one carrying a ’bigger’ camera (Nikon z6iii in Nauticam house with 2x strobes and wet optics). Had a lovely french guide named Margeaux, very attentive and she tried to make the most out of the trip. Cruise Director a meticulous man who definitely rivals the longest and most detailed briefings in the history of scuba. Delicious food. Good crew. Friendly atmosphere, but a little ’machine like’ operation, which is to be expected. But all in all a great trip for seeing some classic Maldivian channel dives. Courtesy of Ocean Warrior (from GoPro)

I would say it might be a mistake to assume that a lens performing optically better on land will be superior/sharper UW. Not always the case. Nikon 14-24 anyone? You shoot a whole system. And fisheye lenses are normally easier to get sharp results from. The tough ones are inme (and quite a few others experience too) the wide rectilinear lenses (like Nikon 14-24). And since the Tokina fisheye zoom 10-17 was mentioned, the reason it wasn’t that popular for land photography isn’t because it’s a ”bad” lens optically… I don’t think it is, it is because it’s an odd ball lens.

Looking for any feedback and experience on using the MFO-3 with a Nikon Z ff. You don’t happen to be shooting Nikon Paul?

A lot of good thoughts. I don’t think there is one right answer, as usually. It depends. Just came from a Emperor liveaboard in the Maldives and it had a big dedicated tank for cameras. Nothing but cameras could go into it. I had no worries leaving my Nauticam rig in it over night. I’ve been on boats that had no good options, mostly day boats, then I have made sure they supply a big enough bucket or fresh water to fill up a cooler bag (brought by me). I don’t like to just ”dunk” the camera and then let it dry with all the salt. Did I say that in 25 years or so I’ve yet never flooded a camera? 🤣 Touch wood. My advice would be to reach out to the organizers, if possible the cruise director, and ask about what amenities and routines the have for guys with big equipment…

Proudly worn on liveaboard, in Vavuu atoll, Maldives..