JohnD

FWIW, I have the 11032 and have had no issues with a Z8 and pro max and maxi strobes. I would imagine that whatever the issue, UWT will make it right. I had a problem with my first 11032 and sent it in for examination/repair and a new was sent to me.

Thanks Phil, not surer how I missed the details on the Marelux page. I was mostly curious about minimum focus rather than maximum, and obviously cannot get much shorter than 0. Hopefully someone can share some experiences with the lens.

I would also love to see some comparisons or tests. I am not saying that as some sort of challenge or dispute. I have found the MFO to be very useful, and if the MV60 does it better, even without being better to the point of "crushing" the MFO, I want one. I would also be curious about working distance and magnification comparison, especially working distance. I just looked and cannot find those on the Marelux website.

I sometimes put a ND on the front, so the threaded portion of the overpriced Nauticam piece is perfect for that.

👍 By the way, as soon as I can get around to it, I will post a brief review on the forum of my testing of the Flexibuoy.

Phil: Well, that all makes sense and was the question that no one seemed able to answer. In one of your shots you show an SMC mounted on the Marelux flip and sitting nearby is the spacer ring. I take it the NA lenses work correctly on the flip without a spacer? I was intrigued by the hydraulic aspect and that's what got me looking at this and interested in getting one.

I recently saw that Marelux has introduced their own double flip holder with a novel feature, for wet lenses. I am/was interested in this, and specifically, whether the Nauticam threaded spacer ring would be necessary to use Nauticam lenses like the MFO and SMC with the holder and if so, whether the standard spacer ring would work on the holder (it does not, for example, fit on an AOI or Saga holder; they require a different spacer). I contacted Marelux and half-expected them to say they had not tested Nauticam products on their flip holder, which would be understandable. Instead, they just responded to me with a link to the website product page and a note that I was "welcome to check." Perhaps mentioning I wanted to use Nauticam products on their holder was a mistake. I then spoke to a Nauticam dealer I deal with often, in case they had any info and of course, was told they had no idea about the Marelux product, which I pretty much expected. So I reached out to a Marelux dealer who also sells Nauticam, and asked about it. I was told the Marelux double flip holder only works with the Marelux brand wet lenses, which seemed odd, since all these products have a 67mm thread, but whatever. So I thought I would ask here in case anyone, perhaps Phil Rudin, could confirm what I was told or provide other info, mostly just out of curiosity at this point.

I love the mfo-3 on my 105 or on the olympus 60mm. Nauticam makes and overpriced "M82 Filter Holder for MFO-3" It allows the use of a lens cap and I use an 82 mm threaded lens hood on it at times. Of course, 3D printer experts like Dave Hicks could make something better.

Some years back I read about and heard about BBF and how wonderful it was. All the cool kids did it, you know. So I set up my camera for it and did the back button thing for a long time. It was fine. It worked. I was able to coordinate my thumb and forefinger fine. But as time went by it seemed that although it was fine and worked, it did not do anything "better" for me and my style of underwater shooting. I began to wonder if it really made sense to use two fingers on two different buttons to accomplish what one finger on one button could do just fine. It also was not the most comfortable on some vertical shots. Maybe it depends on the camera or housing? I switched to using he shutter release button (well, the Nauticam lever) for both focus and shutter release. I am probably not allowed to have lunch at the cool kid's table anymore, but otherwise, I don't feel I am missing anything and I now have an additional, conveniently located button that I can program to do something else. Again, this is for me and for my style of underwater photography. I am not saying one way is wrong or right. Vive la différence.

OK, that is interesting. I assume that this means you need wide and not macro, and do not want fisheye-like distortion. If that is correct and size and weight matter, I would definitively look hard at micro four thirds because the small lenses permit smaller dome ports for rectilinear wide angle. There are a number of zoom lenses from Panasonic and Olympus that can be used as wide as 7-12mm range on the wide end (14-24mm in full frame speak) and all work in a 170-180mm dome, which large-ish but not unreasonable to travel with. You might even be able to use some in a 140mm dome if you can tolerate the loss of image quality. I never tried that combination. That same 170-180 port size could also work with some of the APS-C lenses form other camera brands. I am most familiar with Nikon and OM, so I don't have specific suggestions.

I was talking to another diver/photographer friend a few weeks ago before we were to meet on Grand Cayman, and I mentioned that I was going to bring a MFT setup as a reduced size and weight experiment. He asked me what strobes I was using and I told him I planned on bringing the Retra Maxis. He laughed and I realized that two strobes that were each about the size of the housing and weighing over 1kg each did sort of undermine my small and light concept.

CCRphoto: I am currently using a full frame Nikon underwater but have begun experimenting with going back to micro four thirds (MFT) for travel weight and size reasons. I previously used MFT for several years and would add the following for consideration: I use nauticam housings, so the choices are based on that. For macro, the Oly 60mm and Panasonic 45mm are excellent. I have not used the 90mm lens and doubt I will do so. For extreme wide angle and CFWA, I like the the Oly 8mm fisheye in a 100mm Zen or 140 Nauticam dome port, or second choice, Panasonic 8mm in the same ports. The 12mm Oly is also good for a rectilinear choice Alternatively, a 14-42 or 12-32 lens behind a WWL or WWL-C works well. I found the Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II ASPH MEGA OIS LUMIX G Vario to be the best 14-42 with the WWL, compared to the other 14-42 options from Panasonic and Olympus. I don’t care for the zoom operation of the EZ and PZ lenses. You may feel different about that. The 12-32 lens works well behind the WWL-C and many above water tests suggest it is a sharper lens than the 14-42 lenses. While none of those kit lenses are what I would choose on land, they work well in the water with the WWL and WWL-C. The other lens I enjoyed was the 12-40 behind a 180mm dome, but decided the weight and size of that option defeated the purpose of using micro four thirds stuff. At various times I experimented with the 12-50, 7-14, and some other lenses, but finally settled on those I list above as all I really needed and the 8mm with dome port or WWL are alternatives on any dive trip, depending on destination and goal. I would not take both of those. I supplement with various wet lenses like the CMC, MFO, etc. I am unsure whether I will go back to MFT, as I am happier with the results of APS-C and full frame, but that is probably a personal skill issue, not a hardware issue. Generally, I feel APS-C is the sweet spot, and if Nikon does decide to produce a D500 replacement Z camera, that is something I would be very interested in. So far, it seems that camera companies have been withholding some of the best tech from their crop sensor cameras and offering limited lens choices. I hope that whatever you choose, it brings you many hours of enjoyment. Oh, I also recommend the Retra strobes or if you want something smaller, look at the Atom.

FWIW, I needed glass on a macro port replaced. My Nauticam dealer service guy did not charge for the labor, just price of glass and shipping. Said it would take about 10 minutes. Might be worth checking with your usual source of Nauticam (or whatever brand you have) to see what they would charge. I think shipping cost on a port was well worth avoiding the stress of doing it myself.

I wonder if this would be true of the ULM laser trigger as well