Alex_Mustard

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

Congrats guys!

I'd love to own one of these...

We all want to know if they finally replaced the B*stard Button with a switch! Alex

I have not tried the production version of the MFO yet. I think they have been in high demand and Nauticam haven't been able to supply one yet. However, I have had MFO prototypes since April and taken one on every trip as it is so useful. The production MFO is a little different to the prototypes - and I will wait to shoot it before posting a review (I obviously have lots of sample images and test images from the prototypes). What the Nauticam lenses always deliver is excellent sharpness across the frame. Some others are sharp in the centre and blurred in the corners.

Retra sent me an email with the specs last week and I was reading it to a couple of the guys on my Red Sea workshop, who commented it seemed engineered to beat the HF-1 in each department. One of them then quipped that Retra should have called it the Backscatter Xterminator! The guide number scale makes the difference seem much larger than it is. I've tested (only on land) it against the HF-1 and it is marginally brighter centre frame. But you have to look to see it. And that is with both without diffusers, which is not how you are going to normally use them. But I also understand why Retra have made this - because quite simply some of their customers or potential customers have said that this is what they want. While others, like me, prefer the philosophy of the Pro Max for my photos. And I think it is great news that there is now a wide variety of quality products out there offering people the chance to choose what they think is right for them.

This was very sad and, as always, scary news. I have never been on the boat, but always thought they were very nice people. It must have been terrifying for all on board, especially in such a remote location. We were moored next to MV Nouran at Deadalus on the day of their fire. We left at sunset, and the fire was later that night. We spent much of the day diving beneath their boat with the oceanic whitetip sharks. Waiting Not waiting! This is probably the last photo taken of MV Nouran (far right), as we left that evening:

I'd just say it does the same job as the SMC-1 (but is also optimised to work with the Sony 90mm as well as the 100/105mm lenses) and incorporates what Nauticam have learned about optics in the 10 years since the SMC-1 was introduced. If you have an SMC-1 and are happy there is no need to upgrade. If your SMC-1 is getting a bit tatty then this is a good reason to replace it. If you shoot Sony and regularly see the cut off with the SMC-1, then this gets rid of it. Alex

Good news for second hand values, though. Hype it up a bit and cash in!

I've been shooting it since May. Haven't used my SMC-1 since, although the performance is very, very similar. I like it very much, although the other products are more interesting to me.

Just a hat with "Don't forget your lens, Dummy!" written on it! Alex

There is a downside to Isaac's conversion (get well soon, Isaac). By dividing the lens into two parts (port and lens) it opens up the opportunity for dumb photographers to leave one part at home. In my case I am on a Komodo to Alor trip with the port, but the lens is in England. In my defence we're in the middle of moving house and everything is in boxes, which made packing much trickier than usual. Fortunately for us dummies, Sony cameras are so popular amongst UW folks that there are plenty of fisheyes on board to borrow!

Looks like it has flooded (they normally have air inside - who wants to try and compose a photo through oil!). I would not dive it like that. If you have the standard viewfinder or a friend has a spare viewfinder then use that.

The quick answers are: 1) No. I used the same camera WB for both. But I didn't do detailed testing - I just went out and shot. 2) No. But on the reef, reviewing between shots, I wasn't really shooting fast, I was getting compositions right, reviewing my shot, adjusting when needed. https://www.instagram.com/p/C5rH6q9Nqqv/ Longer answers for others, like OP, interested in these things. I wasn't doing an official review, but was testing for my own interest - so I didn't take notes or do specific comparison shots. That said I am very familiar with what exposure my normal settings and flash powers give, so I immediate notice the differences of different gear. I am lucky that I have access to all the good gear and I would always swap to better gear when it comes to market - so I always try and try good products. Anyway, I last used the Seacams back to back with the Retras when I was in Misool in March. Although that is not that long ago, I've done over 100 dives this then (with others strobes), so I don't remember all the details. But I clearly remember shooting the same settings with each (both power and exposure settings and using the same white balance I normally use - being a Sony user I shoot K WB mostly). The difference between them in light was very small - and both are very much to my taste. In back to back testing you might see a difference, but shooting real world subjects they give very similar light at the same power settings. Both recycle fine. But neither is as instant as the lithium powered strobes are at the highest powers. I don't remember ever waiting on either strobe (although I was shooting at a normal pace, composing carefully, reviewing etc - see video link above). As a general comment (for the benefit of others following), while recycling time is an easy stat to measure, I don't believe it is important for almost all UW photography. We usually review between shooting, it is not as if we have a (different) perfect photo opportunity several times each second. And I think taking a moment to carefully compose etc, is more valuable than spraying off extra frames. Most things in the ocean do not move super fast. There are not normally fast moving elements likes a bird's wings or eye-lids blinks which make or break a composition a nature composition on land. When I first got my Nikon D4 (in 2013, I think) I remember shooting mandarinffish in Lembeh one evening. I set the camera to higher ISO and shot 10 frames per second with my Inon Z240 strobes on a lower power. On that dive I had several hundred shots of mandarinffish pairs, I think over 90 in focus where their eggs were visible too - but despite all these good shots, I got nothing any better than if I had just taken one shot of each rise. It made me realise that much of the time the viscosity of water slows down behaviours underwater and shooting multiple frames often just means multiple similars, rather capturing than some lucky/magic moment. Alex