JayceeB

Thanks. Was thinking it might be sufficient magnification for blackwater though.

Would the 30mm vignette in the FLP-02N / 02P ?

I have owned the Sony RX100IV, Olympus OM-D EM-1 MkII, Sony A7C and Canon R5 in that order. All 3 ILC cameras, after upgrading from the RX100, were a big performance improvement across the board. You probably will enjoy any ILC camera you upgrade to. Of the 3 ILCs, the Olympus was by far the most portable and lightweight travel package. So much so, that I continue toying with the thought of buying one again just to make traveling easier, given the ever increasing weight restrictions. Of the 3 ILCs, my favorite macro kit was the Olympus. If I were shooting more macro, I would go back to that setup. The 60mm macro was excellent and the newer 90mm macro is reportedly incredible for tiny critters, without the need for a wet lens. Of the 3 ILCs, The Canon has the best autofocus, but it isn't magnitudes better than the Olympus or Sony IMO. This is just my experience with the A7C, which I initially thought would be the perfect compact solution. In practice, I struggled with the following 'features': small viewfinder - my eyes are no longer 20/20, and I struggled with the viewfinder. Also, the viewfinder is on the far left side of the camera, so looking through it was awkward for me as my right eye is dominant. not as compact as I imagined - yes, the A7C is small, but the ports, lenses and strobes are the same as a full size full frame camera, so when you add it all up, the travel weight is not that significant. Also, if you stick with the Sony full sized A7 series, they are not significantly bigger than the A7C, and you get a better viewfinder more centrally located. buoyancy trim - The A7C is small, and so was the Nauticam housing, but it was quite negatively buoyant. I ended up having to add sizeable float arms, which added to the bulk of the rig.

Wow! I did not know this. Thank you.

Lowest ISO on the Canon R5 is 100. I have a set of MF-2's I'm going to test out tomorrow with HSS. I'm assuming they use a single default power level too, but it should be much lower than the HF-1's. Thanks for the diffuser option, I hadn't considered that.

I wish I had read this thread more closely earlier, as I wasn't aware of the single power setting. I went to try HSS with my HF-1's and UWT trigger today using f1.8 on a lens I'm testing. I set my ISO to 100 and shutter speed up high. The strobe completely overexposed the shot. I turned the power knob all the way down and it did not seem to have any effect. Next I began turning the shutter speed way up. This is a shot at 1/4000s. Turning the shutter speed up this high kind of works, but you can see all the horizontal flash lines in the shot if you look closely. I'm disappointed that the HF-1 'kind of' supports HSS with the UWT :(

Definitely the same fish, based on the color pattern 🙂

I initially considered the 50mm behind a flat port. I tried my RF 100 macro port to see if that would work, but there was severe vignetting. Given I was in test mode, I wasn't ready to purchase any additional macro or extension ports.

I tried the RF 50mm F1.8 on my own after contacting Marelux. They mentioned it should work with the 140mm mounted directly although they had not specifically tested this configuration. I did not test any additional extensions to improve sharpness, but I could (with my limited extension quiver) I did not consider the risk of vignetting when pushing the N85 out further due to extensions. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try estimating by holding the dome manually out in front of the lens to get a ballpark idea.

Thank you for your response. I can't seem to find the 17mm adapter on the Marelux.co site though. I already have the 140mm fisheye port which I've tested with the Canon RF 50mm f1.8 with a +4 diopter. The results were pretty good, even with a cheap diopter. I have a better quality B&W diopter on order to see if that improves the sharpness. The acrylic 4.33" dome is even smaller then the 140mm dome and a fraction of the weight. The 50mm just clears the N85 diameter of the 4.33. I was looking at this as a light weight travel option. I have no idea how it will turn out, but I already had the 4.33" dome, so thought I would see if it was possible.

Looking now. Thank you for the resource. I was not aware Saga offered adapters.

Thank you for your DIY idea. I don't have access to a machine shop, but this approach gets me thinking in a different direction.

Folks, I have two N85 Nauticam domes (4.33” & 6”) I would like to use on my Marelux housing for testing various smaller diameter travel lenses. I have browsed around on the Marelux and Nauticam sites to see what extension adapters can be assembled to achieve this. I believe it is possible, but would involve many pieces and be prohibitively expensive for testing. Does anyone have any guidance on a different approach, or if there is a custom solution for a 5” Marelux to N85 Nauticam adapter possible? Here’s an example Frankenstein option: Marelux housing (5”)+ Marelux 31701 Extension ring 20 (Adapter for Nauticam ports) $200 + Nauticam N120 to N100 25mm adapter $360 + Nauticam 36741 N100 to N85 20MM adapter $420 + (4.33” or 6” N85 Nauticam domes I already have) Thank you.

I'm interested :) Have you used the 24-70? If so, how would you compare the two. And how is the 24-105 autofocus performance underwater? What extension(s) did you use?

4 dives and ~400 photos. No issues. Case closed for now.