Christian K

With a large dome you can do over unders. But inme wide rectlinear lenses are not as good as Naticam wet optics for corner to corner sharpness. You need a fisheye for that. The wwls are quick and easy to burp, and inme often not even needed, the wacp and dome has the advantage of being ready immediately. In my short but sweet experience with WWL:s … a little sensitive to creating ugly (not cool looking ones) flares when you shoot against the sun. Have never experienced that delicacy with domes. Maybe a wwl-c specific?

Ahh, right .. recall now it has a fixed port system. So it can't fit the z105 f2 which paired with a MFO3 is a pretty versatile combo, covering a lot of macro needs. Have no experience with the CMC or how good/bad it is. I'd say the Nauticam route is nice for a lot of WA needs, but perhaps not for macro in the case of Nikon Z50II.

For wide, the wwl-c is awesome. Please note that the 13-14 mm equivalent Chris mentions is on a fullframe camera. On your DX it is quite a bit wider than your 12-24, which equals a 18-36. 10-17 FE also a very solid option, shot it many years, and has the advantage of being able to do splits with a large enough dome (not as travel friendly as the wwl-c). Others can chime in on the Nauticam macro, but you could stick to a classic macrolens and port and shoot wide with the wwl-c and compact zoom IIRC. Not sure what port system the NAZA50ii uses?

I haven’t done any tests since I discovered it, but glad to hear. And my hunch is it won’t have any impact as it will be wet.

Have these blotches on my 75 dive old Nauticam port, and I have always meticulously kept and rinsed it in fresh water after every dive. I learned from Nauticam that I need to rinse it with deionized water to be sure ... A new one for me. I guess if you don’t have that at hand (!) keep it wet most of time and when you dry it—use a clean soft towel to wipe it off and make sure it’s absolutely dry.

Sobering report. I was on the Emperor Voyager mid March. That smoke, three breaths and you’re passed out. Five and you’re pretty much dead.

Welcome, me to recently back from the Maldives.

55 going on 56. Been scuba diving since 1985 and photographing UW since 1999.

I just try keeping it wet all the time, salt or fresh water doesn’t matter, until it eventually has to open for battery change. Has worked for me.

You need to figure out what your priorities are. All modern cameras are good but one has an edge on this and another one on that. 33 is more than 25. You can take stunning images with 12 mp cameras like the D700 too… But you’d need to create the image in the view finder and not in post processing to a larger extent. If you can, get a quality alu-housing. I used Hugyfot for many years and switched to Nauticam in 2025 when I went mirrorless (remained clueless). Wet optics one big reason and then the z24-50 that can use the slightly more compact WWLC nudged me towards Nikon. If you are cool with second hand, I bet there are great deals to be had on complete sets of very competent equipment.

I shoot a z6iii UW in a Nauticam housing and it is a great little set-up inmo. It is my first mirrorless camera and I come from Nikon DSLR:s since 2005, so I am used to Nikon. I value the compact size of the z6iii (travel and fly) compared to the z8 and especially the z9, but what you win in travel friendliness and overall compactness, obviously you loose a tad performance (speed, cropability). The z5ii was not released when I bought the z6iii and it might have been my pick over the 6iii. I say might, because I haven't held it or tried one. z6iii should overall be a little more responsive (quicker AF etc) and video is a few notches up compared to the z5ii, if that matters to you. But a z5ii in a Nauticam housing with the z24-50 and WWL-C is for sure a tactical nuke. A lot of bang for its size. Check out this review.

Some input on many of the optics discussed in this thread.

Not big on macro tbh. I think it was a ”wish” from SONY-shooters, yes, and perhaps especially from Dr Mustard 🙂 Was toying with the idea about getting a z105 so a MFO3 kind of would make sense as a compliment. Perhaps the 60 and adapter plus z105 and its port would be swifter than a z105+MFO3?

Cheers. Good and thorough run through of various WA options and what they can bring to the table.

Teleconverters do degrade the image. So a ”better” lens+teleconverter might give you a worse IQ result than a ”lesser” lens w/o converter in some other combo/set-up. Worth considering.

Thanks @Dave_Hicks Nice colors! And personally , I’m a sucker for divers/people in frame. So effective zoom range 12-15? What kind of FoV do you appreciate to get there with the TC, approximately? And what’s your verdict on fuzz and sharpness all across compared to using the wwl? Difficult to say perhaps and not that important in such a locale, but would you consider this a more or a less straight option to the 24-50+wwl?

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.