ChipBPhoto

Hi @RVBldr, Not at all a dumb question. As said above, the SMC pairs with the Sony 90. The CMCs will pair with the Sony 28-60. Also, the SMC-1 is the place to start as the SMC-2 has an even greater magnification which makes it more challenging to use. (Note - the CMCs are backwards with the CMC-2 having lower magnification power than the CMC-1) As far as focusing and focusing frustration, you are exactly right. The Nauticam close focus lenses are incredibly sharp and deliver amazing results. The catch is you do, in fact, need to be extremely close to the subject for them to focus. This is a great article from our friends at Reef Photo showing how to best use them. https://reefphoto.com/blogs/photography/understanding-the-working-distances-of-the-smc-1-smc-2?srsltid=AfmBOopM93DXF4ReQEAKmccQejNYUQccJg3lEiX8l5lQnJhcgHkZ3-Mw In short, the SMC-1 distances are: - Min working distance: 45mm or 1.7” - Max working distance: 93mm or 3.6” That means the SMC-1 will only focus between 1.7” and 3.6” from the subject. And once it’s in focus, your Depth of Field is razor thin. f/16 is really about the most open that is normally usable. f/18-22 is more common. This does indeed make these tools challenging, but yields results that a regular macro lens cannot capture. This ultra close working distance also means it really only works with slow moving or stationary subjects. Think nudibranchs. Chasing a moving fish is not really in the cards, nor what they are designed to do. It does take both practice and patience, but it’s worth the challenge. Hope this helps. Enjoy!

Thanks @Gudge for the info. This confirms I do not need a zoom gear. No significant upside. I use a WACP for 90%+ of my dives, and it’s perfect for what I normally want. My goal is/was to find a solution with about a 160 FoV, primarily for goliaths and manatee. Seems pre-setting the zoom I want with the TC attached will do fine. Good comment on using the 8-15 at 15 with the TC for a wide CFWA tool. I’ll look into it. An FCP and EMWL 160 are on the wish list. I just need to find about $15K laying around somewhere. 😂 Thanks again!

I agree that the image appears to be dramatically underexposed. Once you get the LCD set as you like it, I would strongly encourage the use of the histogram when reviewing for correct exposure in the field. For me, this is the best way to judge if I have correct or usable exposure. By quickly reviewing the histogram I have a “feel” as to what will be a good image for post processing vs. unusable images due to crushed shadows or blown highlights. Hope this helps…

Hi @tkdcol Trying to maximize image quality with a small form is always a challenge, especially if you want to do splits as well. As a long time Canon user, I started with the G11, a predecessor to the G7s. I made some nice images with it, and it was super small for transport and usage. Inon S220s would pair nicely to keep the entire rig small and allow decent wide coverage. Unlike your 7D, there is a slight shutter lag with any compact camera such as the G7s, but it’s easy to learn to compensate. Obviously the sensor is small, as is the image resolution. While you can use manual functions, I found it best used in AV mode using the exposure composition to adjust the scene brightness. Between the Canon R50 and R100, the R50 looks like another solid choice. Depending on your photo style, it will give you a more similar usage experience to your 7D. The Nauticam housing is rock solid and relatively small. The WWL-1B can also be attached for some super sharp images, although it will be a bit larger. The WWL does not do splits. I have actually considered the R50 as a smaller rig since I already have the WWL. Image quality I have seen is very good. It also has the newer focusing tech over your 7D at a low price. Note - I am not a fan of Ikelite housings as I’ve seen too many leak or flood. For me, that knocks out the R100 as Ikelite appears to be the only brand making a housing for that body. (I saw a brand new Ikelite R100 housing flood just a couple weeks ago. It was a defect from the factory, not user error.) You may also consider the Olympus E-M10 for a small, capable solution. Being a micro 4/3 system (m43), you are starting with a very small body and lenses. There is an entire lens/port ecosystem that would fit just about any need you have. Backscatter has a good page outlining the various options. (See link below) There are also a few users of the m43 system here that can give more feedback. Images I have seen produced by them have been quite good. I had an original E-M1 and really liked it! If small size is the most important consideration while you’re guiding others, you may also want to check out the Olympus TG7, or TG6 (basically the same). They also excel at macro images. Lastly, if DMs are guiding students or guests, but they are not photo focused, I see most with a simple GoPro/tray clipped to their BC. This keeps their hands free to attend to the guests as needed, but they can still make some quick images or videos for social media. There are definitely some solid options. The question really comes down to how much of a rig are you comfortable with or allowed to carry with guests? And what is the impact on increased risk of liability you assume and/or their perception of your time focused on photos over them? If you’re acting as a photo guide, I would think that is something different than being a normal DM guiding guests, and your rig carried may differ. That’s a question only you can answer. Hope this helps. Good luck! https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-IV-Underwater-Camera-Housing-Review

I had the MF-2 covers printed in red and added a white stripe for improved visibility of the marker line. I’m happy with how it turned out. Thanks again @Dave_Hicks for the plans!

.

Hey Gudge - thanks for the message. I have the Kenko 1.4 and either the Metabones or MC-11 for the Nauticam housing. (I have and use both) It seems like the usable zoom range to avoid vignetting is about ~11-15. Not really sure it’s worth it vs. just setting the zoom at ~12 w the TC and zooming with my fins. Any thoughts?

Still need…..

Nicely done @PeterN !

While Nauticam is a more substantial investment over other brands, I believe you will find the ergonomics and overall usability much more pleasing. In addition, they are extremely well made for a long life. As a side note, I have a friend selling his a6600 and matching Nauticam housing/ports for a good price. DM me if you want more info.

FYI - I ran into a new user of the 5.5” Kraken monitor yesterday. He said he likes it overall. The brightness is terrific, even in a shallow sunny dive. He also stressed it is quite negative due to the very compact design. He was adding more buoyancy to compensate. The battery life was good. The only concern he expressed was regarding their included video ribbon cable. The thin design can cause it to flicker if the cable is moved. He is working through a better HDMI cable solution for a more solid video connection. Other than that he has been very happy thus far.

Hi all, Does anyone have proven plans to 3D print a Nauticam C815-Z+1.4 zoom gear? Note - this is the for the Canon 8-15 AND the 1.4 TC, not the standard 8-15 gear. Thanks in advance! chip

Hi all, Does anyone have a Nauticam N120 Extension 20 they would like to sell? Thanks! chip

Thanks Dave!

Not a fun way to spend money, but far better than I expected. Def worth it.

Ugh - So sorry to hear @fruehaufsteher2 ! While I don’t have an actual cost, I can share the dome replacement cost on a 140 dome was about $300 less than buying an entirely new 140 port. It may be different in Europe, but I just mention to set a possible expectation.

Really great stuff @Dave_Hicks ! I also like the idea of the same for the MF-2. I find the same issue with them as well. Keep me in mind once you make a batch. I don’t have a 3D printer so I’m happy to donate to the cause.

Really nice images! You maximized the composition elements to tell the story. Personally, I like the more environmental aspect even in the macro world. The EMWL is really the best way to capture such scenes. Great job!

In addition to Chris’s explanation, the new viewfinders come in both a 1:1 and 0.8:1 options. I find the 0.08:1 more desirable as it gives a little extra corner and overall full view over the 1:1. It’s personal preference, but I feel that little extra width in the viewfinder easier to use when viewing settings while composing the scene. I understand it’s another added cost, but I find it a valuable piece of gear as I use it on every dive and literally every frame I make.

Greetings all! Does anyone have a Nauticam zoom gear for the Canon 8-15 + 1.4 TC (for the 1.4x TC) they’d like to sell? …NOTE: this is not the standard 8-15 zoom gear… I am located in South Florida, USA. Thanks! chip

All good info. I have found it’s really a balance between the public demand for the item being sold and how motivated one is for a quick sale. I tend to price more aggressively for a quicker sale based on similar items. This frees up cash for the next needed item.

It’s definitely personal taste, but Alex Mustard just used them in the Red Sea. He liked the flat 4500 degree (warm) filters best for blue water. He felt the similar dome filters cut too much light and that the flat filters had a nice coverage. Again, it’s all personal taste.

As far as I know, it works fine as it’s just a EF pass through. The 8-15 is an EF lens, so the Kenko attaches to it first. The RF-EF adapter would then attach to the Kenko TC, and then to the RF body. You would then need to get the appropriate extension(s) and zoom gear.

Unfortunately, the Canon TCs are only designed to work with certain long lenses. They will not attach to the 8-15. The Kenko does not have this limitation.

Nice info - thanks for sharing @dhaas ! In the real world, I wonder how this would perform compared to the R7? I realize the R7 is a higher MP at 32 v 24, and the R7 has a dedicated focus joystick. Other features like IBIS, weather sealing, etc. are not as important uw. They both use the same lenses which would seem to lean toward similar image quality, all be it with a smaller resolution. This body and lens is roughly 1/3 the cost of the R7. ($749 v $1999). That puts it inline with a quality Canon compact camera, but with a true APS-C sensor. Any thoughts?