ChipBPhoto

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?

Good question. Need to first confirm if the RF-EF adaptor would mount on the RF TCs. Canon designed them so that a very limited lens selection can accept them.

Hi Jim, I have the 140 setup now. It’s good, but I want to go smaller. I’m potentially looking to sell the 140.

Hi all, I am looking for a clean Zen 100 dome for the Canon 8-15 lens, Nauticam mount. Glass must be perfect. Located in South Florida. Prefer US seller. Thanks for looking! chip

Nicely done Walt! Glad to hear you and Issac were able to get a dependable solution. And just in time for Goliath season!

As it was explained to me by those in the know, the simpler the lens design, the better the water specific correction ability. (Ie think contact lenses specifically for water correction). That is why we normally see mid-grade lenses recommended with WACP/WWL solutions. (Sony 28-60, etc.). Not bad lenses, but simple “kit” lenses. Better quality G / GM / L lenses perform better in standard domes due to no water correction built into the dome glass. The dome solution relies much more heavily on the lens optics quality than the water contact options. From what I’ve seen and used the 28-60 seems to be the best option with the WACP-C. I personally don’t believe you will see any benefit uw adapting the 24-50 G lens for use with the WACP-C.

If you enjoy macro, I’ve been super happy with it! The focus light of the MF-2 seems to be bright enough to use in most light conditions and is fairly accurate. I attached a small clip on the snoot so I can clip it on my BC when I want to use the MF-2 as a strobe for a wider scene. I’m just using 1 MF-2 when I dive macro and like the dramatic results I can achieve.

Good explanation! Realistically, about 1/800 - 1/1000 or so for the HS-2, but you most likely wont need that fast. The biggest benefit is to help tame a sun ball or use a wider aperture beyond the 1/160-250 normal limit. 1/640 or 1/800, or less, can normally do that very well.

For float arms I use a mix of Nauticam carbon arms at the base and then Stix for the upper arm. This allows me to quickly adjust buoyancy as needed depending on the port, strobes, etc. I am using that day. I also find the longer Nauticam clamps to be perfect for the middle joint. The longer distance allows the top arm to fold flat against the bottom arm for carrying / handing up to the boat. I resisted for a while, but am happy I did that upgrade. As far as clamps in general, Nauticam now has finer threads. I have found this provides a tighter lock without having to over tighten as well as being able to be slightly loosen for movement without being sloppy. If you haven’t already, also get the Nauticam lanyard. Again, I resisted and finally broke down and got it. Super easy and dependable solution! And it’s a buy-it-once thing. (Well, unless you drop it over the deep blue like I did.)

1,000% agree! It hurts (financially) to get into UW photography, but once you bite the bullet on certain items, you have them forever. I tend to buy brand names such as Nauticam, ULCS, etc. Yes, they’re making a nice profit margin to cover their R&D costs, but as a general rule they wouldn’t put their name on junk. My opinion is you’re rolling the dice with off-brands. May work; may not work. I’d rather not find out on a trip.

Oooooooo, that’s purdy!! Christmas came early this year, @Johno1530 ! Your wife’s comment was the best! You def won the prize there. A tip that has served me well is to soak your rig, articulate the buttons/levers, and then dry it. Don’t just let it drip-dry or you will find spots build up on the housing. I picked up an inexpensive electric keyboard blower that I use after then soak to blow water out from underneath the buttons, etc. It’s amazing how much stays there which can reduce and eventually jam up the movement. I know, it sounds like serious OCD, but I like to take care of my toys. It actually takes longer to explain it than do it. Congratulations and enjoy the new adventure!

Most excellent and on-point comments by you both @dhaas and @Davide DB ! I've been giving PADI my annual instructor dues for over 30 years, and have had either a uw video or still camera in my hands the entire time. While I didn't jump at every new iteration, I certainly have done my part to contribute to camera, housing, and bits and bobs manufactures. I remember being shocked at the condescending comments in a local camera shop by the owner. He grew up learning to process on film, and he had a fair amount of frustration to share about the rise of these new DSLRs. He ranted about the "art" being taken out of photography by people using computers to both take the images and then process them. "Anyone can now take pictures, but it's not real" he exclaimed! (Quite odd for a shop owner to tell a potential customer looking to buy a new DSLR 😆) Year later, I can kind of understand perhaps a bit of what he was feeling. But then again, "art" is what you make with the tools at your disposal. AI and technology in general has dramatically put a hurt on the commercial photo industry. Honestly, most images needed for online sales can easily be made on a iPhone and some minor lighting, and that may not even be needed. With that said, I still find joy in the hunt. The hunt to make the best image I can from the same scene 20 others on the same dive boat may see. I still thrive on creating a unique view that others may pass right over. What we hold in our hands is nothing more than a tool. What we do with it, and how we finish it, is the creative part that not everyone or every technology can replicate. Would I be disappointed to dramatically reduce the size and weight of my 26 lbs rig, and get similar results? Absolutely not! Will I still be driven by the hunt, the creative processing, and the joy to share the results with others? I believe all of us in this community will respond with a resounding "yes", regardless of the tools we may use. That is the "art" we create. ...and yes, music sounds way better on vinyl with proper speakers! I am saddened by those that have never experienced it. 😎

Hey John - I’d say that’s a good plan. While you won’t be able to get perhaps every ultra-wide image, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised with its versatility. Unfortunately, there’s no solution that is the “everything” lens. I’ve found the WACP-C to be reasonably close for 90% of what I do. Enjoy! chip

I agree with what Chris shared. I use the 140 dome with the Canon 8-15. I’m very happy with the performance underwater. It is also quite easy for travel. I rarely do splits, but have been successful in calm water. I’d say invest in what you want to do as the primary goal, and then supplement as needed as you go.

So happy it was useful!