Alex_Mustard

I feel that the Tamron 90mm and Sony 90mm are close to indistinguishable in real world underwater shooting. I have used the Tamron more this year than the Sony, but both are currently in my bag here in Canada, as the 90mm is such an important focal length for Sony users underwater, that I like having a back up on trips. But I also think that the Tamron is one of those measurebator favourites - yes, very marginally better, but far more noise is made about it, than real world performance gain. The Tamron is not worth upgrading to from the Sony - they are just so similar. Of course, if you are starting from scratch then its price makes it the better choice (but do be aware that being slightly shorter it does cut off 'vignette' slightly on some ports/wet lens combos specifically designed for the Sony 90mm). However, if a 100mm is coming soon - I would not encourage anyone to buy a Sony-fit macro lens right now until they see what appears and at what price.

Another rumour with the same details... https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/is-the-sony-100mm-f-2-8-gm-macro-coming-on-september-30/ And rumoured release coming soon.

Amazing colour on that mossy. Lovely!

Yes, way more powerful. Most of the strobes I mentioned above are more powerful than the Subtronic Alpha Pro (which was impressive in its time), but a step (or stop) or two below what we have now.

I have always taken light very seriously in my photography and been willing to invest in the best strobes around, even when finances have been tight (as they often are working as a photographer). I credit using quality strobes (and me paying attention to using them well) as being a major factor in me developing a successful career as an underwater photographer. I jokingly credit Sea & Sea for my success - and their marketing machine that kept many of my competitors shooting with inferior light to me for more than a decade! The Subtronic Alpha Pro strobes were very good in their time (I also had Subtronic Alphas, Megas and Gammas - but preferred the light from the Alpha Pros). They had a pleasing quality of light, good colour temperature. I used them as my main blue water wide angle strobes from about 2000 to 2012. They were not especially reliable, and Subtronic service at that time left a lot to be desired. I used INON Z240s as macro and green water strobes during much of this period and onwards. When I could afford new strobes i chose Seacam 150s - which I got in 2012 and used these as my main strobes until 2019. These were noticeably more powerful that the Subtronics. The light was not as soft and i usually used the Seacams with diffusers on them and positioned them slightly further back from my subjects than the Subtronics. But the light is very good, colour excellent and the light went further. The Seacams were more reliable than the Subtronics, but still needed regular servicing. The battery packs and cables were their weak points. Many of my friends shot Sea & Sea YS250s at this time - but I felt that the Seacam was about a stop more powerful and had a better quality of light too. I was very happy there were so many people championing other strobes. Through much of this time I used the Inon Z240 as my main macro and green water strobes, upgrading to the original Retra flash for this purpose in 2017, I think. I went for the original Retra flash because it had better wide angle ability too, while still in a small package. I did a couple of trips with the Z330s, but these were too wide angle focused. As the Seacam 150s aged I tried the ONE UW and Seacam 160s as replacements, but settled on the Retra Pros. All there have great powerful light - but the Retra Pros did so in a smaller package and they had the most pleasing soft light in my opinion. They were also cheaper! I stayed with Pros and skipped with Pro X. I then moved to the Pro Max - the light is basically the same as the Pros, but the battery performance is way, way better. I’ve tried various Chinese circular flash tube, lithium powered strobes - Kraken 160, Supe D-Lamp and these are all fine. The light quality is good. Colour temp a bit cool. The power a step below - I think they don’t get enough light out of the tube despite plenty of power behind it. The Backscatter HF-1 is the most powerful strobe on the market currently (thatI have tried). It is fun to have so much power and I have used them in preference over the Pro Max on big animal trips like with sharks. But otherwise they tend to be used as backups or as off-camera strobes. They are powerful and reliable and I think the light is decent, but not exceptional. The light is best with the warmest flat diffusers. The Retra Maxi is slightly more powerful, but is not on sale yet. I’ve not shot the Ikelite 230 in the ocean, only in the pool, but these were a whole stop less bright than the Maxi (and therefore almost the HF-1). Also I did not try the Maxi with the final reflector set up - but as I tried it, it was very similar to HF-1. Retra say the production version will have improved quality of light. I will probably replace my HF-1s with a pair of Maxis when they are available. The brand new Retra Pro Max II pretty much matches the HF-1 in real world power, with a much better quality of light and in a smaller package. I used them on every dive on my last trip and plan to use them as my main strobes going forward. The Marelux Apollo 3 is impressive as a companies first strobe. But they are less powerful and have a poorer quality of light to the HF-1, but they are probably more powerful than my old Seacam 150s - so right up there. The light is too directional and lacks red, giving poorer colours when shooting them on the reef. The high speed shooting mode annoys me. In standard mode you can only shoot slowly, and then in the high speed mode you can’t shoot at high enough power - because achieving 10 frames a second is prioritised (a mode that did 5 frames a second at a high power would be great - but you can’t have that). It is like making a car that can do 50 kph and 200kph, but nothing in between. I also think that the Lumilink system has very limited practical use - so bulking up the strobe and bumping up its price to have this is a pity. And sadly it is also impossible to get a honest opinion on any Marelux product because the internet is filled with paid opinions. As you asked for my subjective opinion - I’d stress that this is all my subjective opinion. We’re lucky now that we have a load of strobes that are way, way better than Z240s and D1s that everyone was using 10-15 years ago. I’ve said/joked several times that the popularity of Retra strobes amongst serious shooters frustrates me - because everyone has great light now - and something that used to differentiate my work has gone.

The failing is not the entrants or winners, but I fear that Compact Contest Categories are not really achieving the purpose they set out to. Compacts are increasingly niche and that niche has also become incredibly wide.

This is a real challenge for Compact Categories in contests. Compact Categories were started to enable those with lesser cameras to show what could be achieved without spending the big bucks. In recent years some Compact Category winners have been rightly criticised for using super expensive lenses, that take the system cost way above that of most SLRs or FF mirrorless. Now we have a compact that costs more than most of those cameras too...

Here are some thoughts and pictures from shooting them in the Red Sea

One of my group (Mark Green) used it successfully with the 90mm on OM-1. And the 60mm is listed as a lens it works with on the Nauticam website (link below - list at bottom of the page) https://www.nauticam.com/collections/water-contact-optics-for-nav/products/mid-range-focus-optimizer-3-mfo-3 My flip adapter is a standard double Nauticam one. Alex

Thoughts and images from MFO-3

Let's see a picture? I've not seen the final product yet. Matt and I have a UWPS episode coming on Saturday on the flashes. I took almost 10,000 shots with pre-prod units in the Red Sea last month. Alex

I have the Carl Zeiss designed Ivanoff, which I used extensively with a 20mm lens on Nikon SLR (my friend Peter Ladell converted the port fitting). I have not converted it for my Sony because the Nikonos 15mm has almost identical performance, but I am sure I will experiment with it again in the future. I used it to take quite a lot of photos, such as this well-known one: Wildlife Photographer of the YearRig diver | Wildlife Photographer of the Year | Natural...Diving beneath the oil rig, Alex had to anticipate when the cormorants would burst through the fish shoal. The birds hide behind the legs of the rig after they plunge into the dark waters, gaining...This is another: The Zeiss corrector has two lenses - the port and then a second corrector lens that goes on the front of the camera lens. I tested it with and without this internal corrector lens - and without it the Ivanoff was no better than a dome, but with it, it rivalled a water corrected lens like the Nikonos. At the time I tested one other Medium format Ivanoff corrector port (from a Mamiya 6x7 housing) and this was similarly "no better than a dome" - and it did not have an internal corrective lens. Lots of Ivanoff style ports were made for video cameras in the 90s. They weren't amazing optically, but worked well enough for the low-res video of the day. They were smaller and more robust than domes and I feel worked well with the physically small lenses on video cameras. A frustration with the Zeiss system was that the internal corrective lens was quite small in diameter (made for the Hasselblad SWC) and this limited the lenses I could use with the port to those that had a physically small front element. I tried a number of lenses, but none worked as well as a Nikon 20mm. I would put more effort into reviving my port - but for now the Nikonos 15mm is basically doing the same job for me. Yes, I don't have AF, but that is less of an issue than you might think. And it is smaller and lighter than the Ivanoff. I'll watch your tests with interest. Because I quite quickly lucked into a system that worked really well, I felt I never tasted variables that thoroughly. Once I had the right port extension and found that the internal lenses worked great with the 20mm, I just got out there and used it. When ever I varied things the results deteriorated quickly, which also put me off doing more tests. Alex

My experience of the rumor [sic] sites down the years is that they rarely have any insight. In general they speculate for clicks, rather than having any proper info. I have seen them wildly wrong in their predictions of items I have already shot. However, I am inclined to believe this one. I think an ultimate-quality macro from Sony is overdue. I had hoped they may also choose a focal length that would differentiate it from their existing offerings (100 vs 90 is not really different) - but I also see how 100mm is probably the sensible choice for them when competing with Canon and Nikon.

This is how use them on Blackwater (no diffusers and no (option of) beam restrictors):

Not specific to Blackwater, but a general comment well worth stressing. The differences between the light produced by different strobes are often much larger than the differences between using or not using certain accessories. Regularly when teaching I will give very different advice across a group - saying to those with strobe A they need to use this accessory, while those with strobe B require something different to achieve the same end result. This is also why you can find conflicting advice when we try and generalise. For blackwater I've noticed that photographers using strobes with hard light will say diffusers are very important for minimise flare on the subject (silvery scales, around eyes etc). While those using strobes with soft light will talk about the need for beam restrictors to minimise backscatter. Rather than this advice being seemingly conflicting, in reality they are both actually reaching a similar end point in their quality of light.

A point worth raising is that it is difficult to do really precise test shots with and without the MFO-2. I just wanted to highlight this issue – as surely many with and without shots will be shared in the coming months and you should look at them bearing in mind the difficulty in having a consistent methodology. The problem is two fold. First, the addition of the MFO-2 requires the camera lens to refocus (because of the Focus Optimizing stuff). For test shots this means you can’t simply use a fixed focus on the camera to do a with and without shot. And second the MFO-2 is a macro lens and is very long. I have been doing with and without shots keeping the camera a constant distance from the subject. Theoretically, you might think that it is best to keep sensor to subject the same for both shots. However, because the MFO-2 is so long (and we’re shooting macro here) the front element ends up much, much closer to the subject, than the bare lens. So it has been suggested that it would be a better test to keep the front element of the bare lens and the MFO-2 the same distance from the subject – as this is often the limiting factor in underwater photography – both when approaching as subject as closely as possible and also for shooting through as little water as possible. But doing makes the MFO-2 looks a lot, lot wider than the straight macro lens (because the camera has to be moved further back from the subject). The MFO-2 is already a lot wider! There is no perfect way to show/shoot with and without MFO-2 images. All I can say is that when you put it on it does make a really significant change. This test shot was done with the keeping the sensor the same distance from the subject (keeping the camera in the same place) – although I accept this means that the front element of the lens of the MFO-2 is much closer to the subjects, than the standard lens (so for some this underestimates how much wider it makes the view). Without MFO-2 With MFO-2

No idea. The normal rule in underwater photography is think of the maximum amount you can possibly justify or afford and then double it!

I asked Nauticam to look into designing such a lens specifically because of the limitations of only having a one "decent" focal length macro lens on Sony FF (90mm) and Canon FF (100mm) camera systems. The MFO-2 basically converts the Canon 100mm into a 60mm macro and the Sony 90mm (or Tamron 90mm, I used today) into a 50mm lens - while keeping the fast AF (arguably helping it focus faster) and high quality optics of these popular lenses (and adding some water correction for good measure). These are simple test shots from toady. First a coral: left - 90mm alone, right - 90mm + MFO-2 - I am sharing screenshots straight from Lightroom without processing: Note it is hard to do an exact and exact comparison on real subjects because the MFO-2 requires refocusing. But it really makes a big difference to the field of view - I'd say at least the difference between the macro lenses many of us have spent years choosing between. Such shorter focal length macro lenses are very valuable for those that dive in poor visibility, for those that like some of the larger macro subjects (octopuses, frogfish, seahorses etc) and for blackwater photographers. And the lack of good options is a frustration. I made the request for this lens after my blackwater trip in March and it is exciting to see it already - I expected it to be more of a niche product for these specific users... I was surprised how long the lens is, which left me concerned it would be hard to aim and could unbalance the rig. The lens needs to be this size to perform well optically, but it is surprising lightweight for its size - and just a little negative underwater. However I was actually surprised that adding this lens makes the rig very comfortable and it feels very natural to shoot through it on a dive. Being noticeably wider than the standard macro lens it is actually even easier to aim and compose than the standard lens. I passed it to a friend during today's dive and he just got on with shooting it (I had to demand it back)! The image quality with the MFO-2 is very good. It is impressively sharp across the frame, with some mild CA creeping in at the corners. I'd like to test back to back to be sure, but I feel it is better in the corners than a Sony 50mm or Nikon 60mm behind a flat port, but behind how these lenses before behind a curved port. Anyway - it is very, very good. This shot shows corner frame detail at 100% on unprocessed RAW file (50MP camera) And here is another more central in frame - this time 200% zoom in on a 50MP file. It also focuses right to the front element - although like a port this starts to limit lighting options. Here is my finger (uncropped) to show smallest subjects it suits (same as 50/60mm on full frame, really). Now I have dived with it, its great strength is that it is light and easy to carry on all macro dives. Meaning that macro dives are no longer a decision between 105 or 60mm, you can now have both options, always. So when you see a great macro subject you can get two totally different macro shots of it very quickly. Before I used it underwater a serious M43 user (OM-1) on the trip asked me if he should order one. I said "No! You have the option of 4 macro focal lengths already, this isn't really for you." After the dive I said "Try it - if you do you will want one - it is so nice having the option of two macro primes with every subject." The MFO-2 is quite long - but this makes it light too - which makes it very comfortable to dive with and very natural to shoot with (contrary to what you might think with the length) - I really can't see me doing many macro dives without it. It was designed for FF Sony and Canon FF users frustrated with a lack of macro options. But others may be interested too, may turns to will if you get to try one. Hope this is helpful.

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.