JayceeB

I've been wondering where the future of small sensor shooters is going, as I have one in my family, and many friends that shoot with older 1" sensor cameras. Glad to hear about your actual hands on experience with the R50 setup. BTW: @Phil Rudin brought the R50 package up in a different thread as a price conscious option with size and travel benefits.

Thanks for your advice. I tested the Flat white 6300k diffusers on a few dives. They are a just a bit too cold for my taste, but not extremely so. Flat 5500k diffusers ordered.

Aloha Waterpixelers, Has anyone shot the Backscatter HF-1’s in Hawaiian waters? Ideally off Kona. I’m trying to determine the best colored diffuser for the waters here, so if you have feedback or samples with the 5500 or 4500 diffusers you’d like to share, I’d appreciate it. Thank you!

I was looking at the macro capabilities and resolution, which aren't being highlighted in their marketing campaign. 1cm minimum focus distance in macro mode. 20 megapixel sensor Agree with you that a $300 price difference may be a big deal in this category.

https://us.ricoh-imaging.com/product/ricoh-g900-2/

Closest focusing distance=0.48m / 1.6 ft

Thank you @Alex_Mustard. This unbiased feedback was exactly what I was hoping for. Extremely helpful.

Thank you, @Architeuthis ! I have watched the MF-1 episode, but missed the Kraken episode. Has the extra weight of the HF-1's been an issue for you compared to the Z330's?

Does anyone (not selling or sponsored by Kraken or Backscatter) have hands on experience with both the Kraken KR-S160 and the Backscatter HF-1? I am considering both these strobes as replacements for my INON 330's which are nearing end of life. I am most interested in quality of light for fish portraits and wide angle in blue water, ergonometrics, weight and bulk above and below water and reliability. I have a pair of MF-2's for macro. Thanks for your help.

I've had my eye on this setup for a while now as a replacement for my wife's Canon G7XII when the time comes. Excellent value, compact, nauticam housing quality and more camera than most people need.

One observation I've had personally, is that a more compact body and housing do not always equate to a smaller and lighter system underwater or for travel. Check the buoyancy of the housing+body and compare. If you end up with a small housing with greater negative buoyancy, you will end up adding float arms which adds weight and bulk, and you don't really save as much as initially expected in that regard. Nauticam lists the: R7 Housing + Camera = +.1 kg buoyant. 6600 Housing + Camera = -.43kg buoyant (this does not include the optional accessory battery) That's a .53 Kg difference that would need buoyancy added to the Sony kit to make it equivalent buoyancy to the Canon. Arms, strobes, lights would be equal for either kit.

Could this be a 'Barred Conger Eel' ? https://www.reeflex.net/?show=galerie&galerieID=76175&galerieCode=63b408cd650c5

I had the A7C. The camera and housing were very compact, but it required a fair amount of buoyancy to get neutral. In the end, I’m not sure big arm floats and a small housing really saved much in the space department. Personally, when I travel, it is the weight that is more challenging to manage than size. Also, the viewfinder on the A7C is small. I’d recommend seriously considering that when comparing to your D500. When I decided to move on from the A7C, a quality viewfinder was high on my list of upgrade requirements. As for image display in the viewfinder, I’m not sure I could live without that now, as you can review your shot and adjust for another without taking your eye off the subject.

This is what I use. https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Power-Tools/Specialty-Tools/Compact-Blowers/0884-20

I owned the Sony A7C + 28-60+WWL1B and my unscientific perception was that the sharpness of subjects 10’ and further was not as crisp as I was previously getting with my Oly MFT 12-40 in a dome. I often shoot dolphins and sharks that are not always close. I ended up switching to Canon, but when I did, I opted for the 14-35mm in a 230mm dome instead of water contact optics. I prefer this setup over the 28-60+WWL-1B. Also interesting, is that I find myself using the 35mm end of my 14-35mm far more often than the wide end, and am considering adding a 24-70mm lens +180mm dome as my standard setup. I would sacrifice corner sharpness for the smaller/lighter dome, as most of my dives are shore diving. I think this zoom range is overlooked by many as we tend to be taught that fisheye/wide-angle + macro are the two setups you should ‘focus’ on. I also own the 8-15 fisheye, and love this lens, but it is only brought out for special occasions like CFWA on colorful reef scenes, or if I’m traveling and need to lighten my kit weight. -Jaycee

I've used the 14-42+WWL-1B as well as the Oly 12-40mm PRO in a 6" dome. My preference would be the 12-40mm. I know they aren't the same field of view, but the 12-40mm was a lovely lens and covered most of the type of shooting I do. I found that the majority of my WWL-1B shots were zoomed in, but realize this is a personal preference, and not for everyone.

I have learned a lot from the generous members of Wetpixel and am more than excited to see that some of those same members have taken the initiative to keep our community alive. Thanks again for your efforts, and I look forward to participating in Waterpixels going forward. -Jaycee