JayceeB

I always cover ports in/out of the boat, or to/fro shore entry. Just be careful not to lose the cap...they're $132 to replace...don't ask me how I know that 🙂

Thanks, @Adventurer. Let me ponder on the +4 diopter suggestion. Not sure how far I want to pursue this option as I was looking for a lightweight travel setup for Malapascua Thresher Sharks. I have tested the 140mm dome + RF 14-35mm successfully at the 35mm end. I think that will likely be my choice, as AF is fast and reliable. I'll utilize the 50mm for above water use only.

I tested this setup today with the RF 50mm and 140mm dome port with no extension. It did not go well. The lens would not autofocus on subjects less than 20' away. In most cases, when I pushed the back button autofocus, the focus box (Canon R5) would just turn red, and it wouldn't even attempt to focus hunt. The specs on this lens give a minimum focus distance of 30cm. Could it be that the virtual image of the dome is too close to the lens? I'm wondering if adding some extension would solve this. Test shot of a manta I had to back off by 20' to get focus. (Some color correction, but no sharpening)

I picked up a refurbished RF 50mm f/1.8 from Canon for $160 USD. It is tiny. Image sharpness above water is more than adequate by my standards. Autofocus speed above water is average, but I wasn't expecting class leading performance. This lens isn't listed on the Marelux port chart, but they confirmed that the 140mm dome port should work with no extension. I'll post my experience and samples once I get this combination underwater.

Thank you for posting these. It's nice to see some samples from less common lens/dome/port combinations. Glad it worked out for you.

Thank you for sharing your experience!

Folks, Has anyone tested the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 or Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro + EF/RF adapter in a Flat Port? Looking for feedback on AF and IQ. Thank you!

I was able to test out the 60mm extension on the 140mm fisheye dome. The sun shade appears at top and bottom slightly at 14mm. At 16mm+, the shade does not show in shots. 14mm 17mm

Awesome information! That makes sense now. My camera is already packed for today with the 30mm extension, but I will try the 60mm tomorrow. If the 60mm causes slight vignetting at 14mm, no problem zooming in a bit. The bulk of my shooting will be at the 35mm end anyways with this setup.

I see what you're saying with the Canon 8-15mm. Both the 140mm and 230mm domes require a 30mm extension. Perhaps a bit different with the 14-35mm? The 180mm dome requires a 50mm extension, but the 230mm dome requires a 60mm extension. The test shots I have been making were using the 140mm + 30mm extension exactly as setup for the 8-15mm. I wonder if it would be worthwhile testing the 14-35 + 140mm + 60mm extension, which I have for my 14-35mm + 230mm dome. I don't have a 50mm extension.

Based on that test I'd say you have your solution and it doesn't involve buying anything new. Corners look fine at 35mm, any unsharpness could just be depth of field. Thanks for the feedback, Chris. Yes, I think this will work just fine for my needs, where travel weight is a big stress factor. Also, I don't remember the last time a solution presented itself with zero cost 🙂

14mm Second Set null

So I compared the EF 8-15mm fisheye to the RF 14-35mm, and they’re nearly the same length, so I thought I would try out the 14-35mm with the 140mm fisheye dome port. I set my expectations extremely low, and was hoping it would give acceptable results at the 35mm end. I tested it out on two dives today, and took mainly 35mm shots, but also tried some 14mm shots as well. I was actually pleasantly surprised at how well it performed, at least to my eyes, but I’m not very picky on edge sharpness. I’ve uploaded a few shots to show 35mm and 14mm in case anyone is interested. 35mm first set.

So true. I almost always shoot sharks at 35mm, and usually wished I had more zoom.

I'm running Marelux. Their port chart says to use the 140mm dome with no extension.

Thank you, Chris. I'll think more on the 1.4x. I'm less concerned with the macro working distance than the performance on sharks in low ambient light. I wonder if the 35mm focus hunts in those conditions. I also had a thought that maybe I could run my 14-35 in the 140mm dome, but fix it at 35mm. I'll have to compare the 2 lens dimensions. Anyone tried this in real life?

Hello Waterpixel Community, I have a Spring trip planned to Anilao and Malapascua. I shoot a Canon R5, and will take my RF100 for macro at Anilao, but Malapascua is a little more difficult to plan for given travel weight restrictions. I have an 8-15mm fisheye, but think this might not have enough reach for the sharks, and I also don't want 50 divers in every frame 🙂. My 14-35mm with 230mm dome is just too big and heavy. I was looking at lens options and see that Canon makes an RF 35mm macro that will fit in my 140mm fisheye dome port. Have any of you had experience with this lens underwater? I was thinking it would work well for sharks, but also be nice for clownfish and some larger macro critters. Any feedback on this lens, or other recommendations would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Looking for a Nauticam LCD Magnifier for my RX100 IV Nauticam housing from a US based seller. Thank you.

So the primary purpose is to eliminate or reduce hunting, and likely negate the need to use the limiting switch. Secondary purpose is to improve image quality.

Thank you, Isaac. I look forward to seeing some samples with and without the MFO-1.

I'm not sure I quite understand the advantage of using this lens on an RF100mm yet. Mininum working distance from the port glass of the lens alone is ~80mm for 1.4X magnification. With the MFO-1, minimum working distance can be reduced to 20mm, but you only get an additional .2X magnification = 1.6X. To me, I'd rather have an 80mm working distance to light the subject and miss out on the .2X extra magnification. I think I may be missing something elementary here.

I have been shooting an R5 in a Marelux housing since May 2022. I owned 3 Nauticam housings before that (RX100 IV, Olympus OM-D EM1 II, Sony A7C) The strobe trigger works well. I ran with that trigger for nearly 2 years, then switched to UW Technics for HSS.

Is there really a single right way to carry a camera underwater? I dive with a variety of seasoned dive photographers, and they all do it differently. I say carry it in a manner that works for you, and you'll be doing it the right way. I do it all kine ways, depending on the situation. I know the original post was regarding muck diving, but here's what I do in various dive scenarios. Shore Diving: I carry mine to the beach using two short hand-braided lanyards on each side attached to my D-rings. If one lanyard fails, the other lanyard will still prevent my rig from dropping to the ground. Once in the water, I detach both lanyards and carry it...sometimes with one hand, sometimes with both hands. Offshore: If I'm offshore, I keep it connected with a short hand lanyard. No BCD, so no D-rings. No strobe arms for this scenario. Blackwater: On Blackwater, I use my D-ring lanyards when first jumping in, then switch to a short hand lanyard Boat Diving: I leave my camera attached to to my D-ring lanyards when first jumping in, then detach and adjust strobe arms and remove the dome port cover. When ascending, I attach to my D-ring lanyards for safety stop and/or SMB deployment.

Here is a shot, straight out of camera with no adjustments, using the 5500k diffusers. Shot taken facing East at ~1:30PM in partly cloudy sky at 78' depth. 1/200 sec at f/16, ISO 125, WB 5500K (RF14-35mm at 15mm). The background water is a bit dark, but I think the blue tone is what I was looking for.

Here is a concrete example of where HSS could have been used. This nudibranch egg mass shot was taken in 30’ of clear water during a bright sunny day. I wanted the look of a wide open aperature, shallow depth of field shot. The problem I had was that at my least sensitive ISO (100) and fastest shutter speed (1/200), paired with widest aperture of f2.8, there is just too much ambient light, and the shot in general looks dreamy and soft. I would have preferred being able to increase my shutter speed much higher to get more contrast and a darker background mood to the shot. HSS would have allowed me that flexibility.