JohnD

I will post when i get everything and try it out.

I had not even thought about looking at the magnification differences. Being dense, I guess. Thank you for the explanation.

This is just idle curiosity, I suppose, but many of you are much more technically adept than am I. So maybe someone can explain: I happened to notice that a Nauticam wwl-c on a Nikkor 24-50 lens has a converted field of view of 130 to 81 degrees. The wwl-1 with the same lens and camera has a converted FOV of 130-72. I would have thought that any difference might have been on the wide end since with the wwl-c, the lens can be used at 24mm while on the wwl-1, the soom range should be limited to 28mm on the wide end. I am guessing it is just a result of the optical construction, but it confounds me. Perhaps the optical design accentuates the wide end (to allow 24mm) and that resulted in a reduction in the effects at the long end? If this is a technically stupid question, please be gentle.

So....I went ahead and ordered the Saga dual flip. I will try it out but also take the single flip along, in case the double flip experiment fails. Chris, in the absence of any other feedback, I checked with Reef Photo and was told that although there is no clip, there is a strong detent or spring mechanism that will hold the diopter or whatever firmly in place. They suggested the Nauticam was not worth the large price difference. I will try it out when it arrives.

Well, for me, I like the MFO-1 because it gives just a bit of extra magnification which makes it easier to use than the SMC, and also increases the focusing distance allowing more versatility. It may have been over-hyped and may not have been the miracle lens that it at first seemed, but it suits me, and I would prefer to have it. However, I am unsure how annoying a double flip might be in general and more so with the fairly large MFO-3, and whether that potential bulk and weight outweighs the benefit of also having the MFO-1. Of course, I realize this is highly subjective, but I guess that was really the question. And, also whether the Nauticam version is really worth almost twice the price of the Saga? My guess is no, but I have not used either.

That is my general feeling as well. But I watched Alex's video and he seemed to feel it worked OK even on a double flip. Although, it would be nice to have both the "1" and "3" available. "First World" problems, eh?

Having been to Volivoli and Paradise, I would suggest trying to make the liveaboard work if financially possible. My land resort experiences in Fiji have not been great. This is just me and others seem to have good experiences, so you may have different expectations and maybe I just caught those places at a bad time. But, I won't be going back to Fiji except on a liveaboard.

Hi All: I have ordered the MFO-3. I currently enjoy using the MFO-1 on my 105 Nikkor and am trying to decide if it is worth getting a double flip so I can use both, or if I should stick with a single flip for the MFO-3 and just uunscrew and stow the MFO-1 or leave it off when using the "3" I have never used a double before and they look cumbersome to me. And, if going with the double, is it worth the premium price for the Nauticam over the Saga? I am sure some of you have experience with this and I look forward to advice. Thank you in advance

Thanks guys: Okay, one snoot, that makes sense. I am leaning towards the Retra, in part because I already have Retra strobes. Tim, I assume you leave off diffusers or macro rings on the left side strobe so you can attach the snoot without fumbling around? I still need to consider size and weight. It looks like the LSD is 215mm long and the OS1 is 184mm, so not a huge difference, but it appears the MF2 is itself quite long so perhaps the assembled length is greater than the Retra strobe and LSD. . It seems that the OS1 much lighter (275g vs 600g), but if I take it in addition to my "primary" strobes the weight of the rig is greater. The trips will involve some diving from RIBS and perhaps other small boats and minimizing size and weight may be valuable.

I have generally been a CFWA guy and done only limited macro over the years. But I have two trips over the next several months to the Philippines and Indonesia, that will be almost exclusively macro, perhaps with some fish portraits and such thrown in. I anticipate primarily using the Z8 with a 105 and MFO-1. I am considering adding something like the Backscatter MF2 and snoot or alternatively I could get the Retra LSD to use with my Pro Max strobes which will be with me anyway, and would love to get some input from you macro experts. Edit to add; I previously failed to find some of the earlier discussions on this topic, so that has now answered some of my questions. Having read those, I am drawn to the MF2 due to smaller size / lighter weight and the idea of a small "backup" strobe is kind of appealing, but then it is one more thing to pack and one more lithium battery and I am sure I would be taking the Retras anyway, so... It sounds like most folks only use one snoot...correct? Is either of these (the LSD or MF2 with snoot) easier to aim or clip off when desired? I expect a learning curve but am hoping I can get the basics down in a pool before I go. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

I'm waiting for later this year when the Pro Max III come out.

"unlimited Budget?" Easy...... I would hire someone a lot better than I am to dive with me, And also pay their expenses. Have them agree the images/videos and copyright are mine. We swim around and I point to what I want photographed/filmed and then claim the image/video later. Problem solved. 😉

I never had any complaints about the D500 focusing. I have not noticed any significant difference so far. The Z8 may be faster, but I am not sure of that yet. I am still learning the finer points of the various modes on the D500 beyond 3D tracking. I pretty much always use AFC, so cannot really compare AFS focusing speed between the two. I tried the animal setting for eye tracking and that did not seem to be useful compared to simple 3d tracking. Next week I will be exclusively using the WWL-C and will experiment with some of the many focus options. I bought a Nauticam housing. I have used their housings for years with good results and have acquired numerous ports, extension rings and accessories so it is easy to stay with them for me.

Done

At the suggestion of TimG, I thought I would share this. Many, many years ago I got into photography and for a while, was a photographer for a major newspaper chain, doing mostly sports photography. Later I pursued other career options and recreational activities and did little photography. Eventually, I began taking pictures on beach vacations with my wife and kids and while snorkeling, using a compact camera in a cheap waterproof housing with no external flash or auxiliary lenses. I was not impressed with the results and when I later learned to scuba dive I went down the rabbit hole of dive photography, moving from compact to M43, to DX formats and now full frame. My very recent change has been to a Nikon Z8. That change was not prompted by format size...I find APS-C just fine for my purposes. But my vision has changed and underwater find it hard to use the back LCD screen as well as before. I have only taken one dive trip with the Z8, so am still learning the camera and adjusting a couple of lens changes that go along with that. Here is what I have found so far: The electronic viewfinder is great. Bright and contrasty and highly adjustable. The ability to use just the viewfinder when I want to has been great and has allowed me to make adjustments and reshoot a subject more quickly and efficiently than with the DSLR. For Caribbean diving, I have been enjoying the fairly compact WWL-C. On a given dive I may shoot blennies, jawfish and nudibranchs and then a loggerhead turtle or shark or reef scene and the flexibility is nice and the optic pretty compact. My general belief is that it is better to have one type of photography in mind on a given dive, but I seem to end up on a lot of smallish dive boats where I don't know what dive site I am going to until I am on the boat that morning, and often can't really plan on being able to change lenses and ports on the boat and will need to keep up with the guide and group in the water, and not spend 10 minutes minutes getting a shot or looking for a specific subject. On other dive trips or when I am shore diving, I will take the 105 or the 60 macro lens or the 8-15, FTZ and a 140 dome and the WWL-C will likely stay home. I believe I can alos use the 60 and 8-15 in DX mode if I want, giving some additional flexibility and permitting me to use a kenko 1.4. Not sure if that will be worthwhile, but I like experimenting. Overall, I think I am enjoying the Z8 a little more than the D500, and the size and weight difference is minor. Of course, great photos can be taken with much smaller cameras and simpler setups. It is the person not the equipment that matters, but I am something of the photo equivalent of a motorhead (lenshead?) and can get carried away with the toys pretty easily. I may have more insights after my trip next week.