Alex_Mustard

Very different to MFO-1. So not relevant to the discussion here (I didn't bring it up!). Since many still struggle with the job of the MFO-1 - it is to give you a bit more magnification than the lens does on its own (while improving IQ and AF a bit).

Don't want to derail discussion. Once I've tried it, I'll share more details. It is designed to do a different job from MFO-1. Despite looking production ready with the finish, it's early stages. Alex

Article says “first” so perhaps there will be more soon?

While I fully agree that smaller sensors give more depth of field, there seems to be a mistaken belief that the goal of macro photography underwater is all about maximising depth of field. Sometimes it is. But usually it isn't. I shoot on full frame. And this same thinking would mean you would imagine that I always have my lens closed down to maximise depth of field. Instead you will see a very wide range of apertures used. This, as an example, is the apertures I have selected for the 4300 macro shots that remain in my Lightroom (after culling) from my shoots over the last 12 months. I share this to make the point to show the fallacy of the sweeping statement that saying that one camera system giving more depth of field makes it better for macro.

Of the ones I have tried, I thought the autofocus of the Canon R5 Mk2 with the 100mm is the best combo (once you get used to the AF). I’ve not shot the latest Sony cameras (A9-3 and A1-2) for comparison. I’d use this with Nauticam’s SMC and MFO lenses - because these are the best quality supplementary close up lenses I have tried.

[CBA]

I am also a card-carrying fish nerd and I only shoot AFC UW. MFO works great. But is it transformative - no. Buy it because you regularly find subjects a bit too small for the 90mm on its own, and then enjoy the other small benefits. I think camera body makes a big difference to how well the Sony 90mm focuses.

I do think Nauticam's promotion of the MFO-1 has caused plenty of confusion around this lens, because they have drawn attention to minor features equally to its main purpose. I asked Nauticam to develop this product because I wanted a high quality, but weaker close up lens than the SMC. There are lots and lots of subjects that are a bit too small for a straight macro lens and too big for a SMC. The MFO was designed to plug this gap. The optical design of all of Nauticam's close up lenses includes a correction for the image aberrations created by using a flat port in water. This is beneficial for image quality (especially away from the middle of the frame) and also by presenting the lens with a clearer image - improves focusing performance of the lens a bit. The MFO also improves focusing because it stops the lens hunting as much because it makes it impossible to focus on very distant subjects in UW terms (as the focus range is now shifted closer) . This is particularly helpful with mirrorless cameras (PDAF) - which can struggle to know what to do when a subject is totally out of focus. That said, I would say AF improvement is a minor benefit of the MFO. Image quality improvement is also the same as other Nauticam close up lenses (they all aim to do the same correction for the flat port). I like Mike Bartick's comment on the MFO-1 in this regard - "think of it as a make it 'betterer' switch - stick it on your macro lens and just go and use it". The MFO will allow you to fill the frame with smaller subjects, stop you shooting things that are too far away, give small improvements in image quality and AF. The optical correction that all Nauticam's close up lenses make for the port is the reason it does not make sense to stack the MFO and SMC. As both perform a correction - you end up with a double change, in other words as far away from optimum as having no correction. So they work together, but without the image quality benefit. The other point I want to mention is that you should not ever use the Focus Limiter Switch on your macro lens whenever you might be using UW close up lenses. You need this full range of focus to properly exploit the full range of these lenses. I previously used the FIT +5 and the Nikon 5T for the role of the MFO. But these did not have the same image quality of the MFO, as they did not correct for the flat port aberrations (which is why I pushed Nauticam to make the MFO). I have shot the MFO for over a year (in pre-production form last year). It does not record in the EXIF, but there are 25 pages of images on my website since I started using the MFO and most of the macro shots are taken with it: see this page https://www.amustard.com/library/page/search/alex/26/ and forward to 1, which cover the last year (my most recent trip was sharks - so ignore the newest 90 or so images - pages 1-5!).

I have two videos about my setup (for Sony A1) - where UW stills photography is the priority use: and

I use the Nikonos 15mm lens quite regularly (but I don't always tag the lens in keywords, so it is hard to share a gallery of images). I just use it on Nauticam's stock adapter. It is the lens I have owned from new (30+ years). Here are a few recent ones:

We've got an episode of The Underwater Photography Show coming out about this later today.

And a small selection of shots taken with the Retra Maxi strobes in the Maldives Sony A1, 28-60mm, FCP Sony A1, 28-60mm, FCP Sony A1, 28-60mm, FCP Sony A1, Nikonos 15mm Sony A1, Nikonos 13mm Sony A1, Nikonos 13mm Sony A1, 28-60mm, WACP Sony A1, 28-60mm, WACP Sony A1, Tamron 90mm, MFO-1 Sony A1, Tamron 90mm Sony A1, 28-60mm, FCP

Images and thoughts on trying (pre-production) Retra Maxis in the Maldives in March/April. Quick summary - performed very much as you'd expect them to - mega powerful, good ergonomics. With specs that are very similar to Backscatter HF-1 (Retra can claim to be the most powerful strobe on paper - but basically max power on these is all but the same as FULL +2 on HF-1 in the real world). Dry weight same as HF-1, but fatter, so much closer to neutral underwater. Quality of light not as nice as Retra Pro Max, but I still produced very pleasing images (just a bit more care needed on strobe positioning). Alex

Thanks guys - Waterpixels got the obligatory plug as Website of the Year in our end of 2024 episode.

We’re closing in on the 100th episode of The Underwater Photography Show (2 to go)! Thought I’d do a post to check it out, if you haven’t already: https://www.youtube.com/@UWPhotoShow/videos Alex