JohnD

My favorite is the CRL3HD underwater camera lanyard by Cetacea. It can be snapped short or unsnapped to be long and is very strong and durable. I have used it for years and it is still going strong. I always use a tether/lanyard but it is really just for a situation where I need to "drop" the camera for some reason and don't want it going off on its own dive. I hold the camera during the dive because don't need a camera banging into me or gear, or the strobe arms getting twisted around or fiber optic cords getting pulled out or ports getting scratched and all of these seem much more likely with a dangling camera. While not actively "using" the camera, I may hold the housing with one hand or both hands and sometimes I sort of cradle it against my chest. Currents may dictate how I hold it. This really requires little mental effort and if I need to be free to help someone with a loose tank strap or something, then I will let the camera dangle or float as the case may be. Some shore entries require a bit more thought to keep hands free in case of a fall, but still have some protection for the housing. The iron shore entries on Bonaire always had/have me a bit anxious. I have on ocassion used the cetacea in its snapped position on rough shore entries figuring that if i went down i might be able to protect myself and the housing. thankfully I have not really tested the theory.

In case my thoughts are of interest or help to anyone deciding on a new camera, I thought I would share my thoughts: As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am considering moving from a D500 to a mirrorless camera. My primary reason is the enhanced capabilities of the electronic viewfinder, due to some recent eyesight issues. Using the LCD on the back of D500 when underwater is frustrating now. I would like the ability to do pretty much everything through the viewfinder including reviewing shots. I am also interested in what apepars to be improved focus accuracy and speed. Otherwise, I am happy with the DX format and the D500 in general and that influences my choices. Every camera option besides Nikon involves a variety of adapters and extensions and other bits and pieces, and at a minimum I would likely have to purchase a Canon 8-15 and some macro lens to replace what I have now. There are issues with some of the Nikon brand alternatives, especially in APS-C, including flash sync speed, viewfinder brightness and clarity and focus speed. Also, I intend to continue using Nikon for above water photography due to an extensive collection of lenses, so staying in the same system will simplify things some. But I am not thrilled with the Z50II. Comparing Nauticam housing sizes, and looking at the Canon R7, Sony A7RV, A7Cii, A6700, Nikon Z50, Nikon Z6 and Nikon Z8, the difference from largest housing to smallest was generally within 1-2 inches in any dimension (L, W, H). In some cases, the difference was less than 1 inch or so in any given dimension. The leading non-Nikon contender is the A7RV. The Z8 housing is .6” longer, 1.33” wider, and 1.4” taller than the A7RV. Not a stunning difference. Yes, I could save size by going to a different housing manufacturer, but I doubt that I would do so. Staying with Nauticam allows me to keep using my current vacuum valves, handstraps, M10 ball mounts and handles, and saves me from trying to adapt or buy new ports or adapters. It also allows me to use the Nauticam angled viewfinder Housing size is a factor for travel, but by the time we add ports, strobes, arms, focus lights, etc., it is hard to really shrink a system without going to M43 or a compact, or perahs the A6700. I have done the M43 thing before and am happier in a larger format. When Dave Hicks reminded me that I could always shoot a Nikon Z8 in DX, and I thought about the lenses and ports and zoom rings I already had, and the land-based lenses I intend to keep, it made a lot of sense to stick with Nikon and whether Nikon will ever produce a D500-grade DX mirrorless is unknown. So, barring any sudden epiphany, I think the way to go for me is a Z8, on which I can use my 8-15 lens in DX mode in the 100 and 140 ports I already have, and even use the Kenko 1.4 if I want. Or I can use the 8-15 as a fixed 15mm in FX mode in the 140 dome, although I suspect the corners may be iffy. I will add a WWL-C for use with the 24-50 Z lens and that will be my primary “easy button” for Caribbean wide angle. I can continue to use my 105 and 60 lenses in the ports I have or upgrade to the Z105 and perhaps use my current port. I suppose I could alos use my 10-24 and other similar lenses, but I have mostly abandoned traveling with larger domes…just too much hassle. There is a rumor that Nikon is working on an FTZ adapter that would work with the older “screw drive” lenses and if that happens, it would open up some other fisheye options I have in a drawer, although there may not be much real utility in that. And Nikon is having a sale. Comments welcome.

Disregard. I found the thread. Don't know how I missed it the first time.

I intend to use the viewfinder,that is one of the motivating factors for mirrorless. I don't anticipate significant battery issues but I see nauticam now offers the ability to charge some cameras through a housing bulkhead and I assume I could take one of the power bricks and replenish the battery during a surface interval even in situations where opening the housing might be unwise.

I do have a Kenko 1.4 that I use with he D500. Do you know which versions work with the z8? I just tried a search but did not find what I needed.

You make a good point, Dave. If you don't mind, tell me about image review using the z8 through the viewfinder. One of my interests in the mirrorless is the ability to review and image quickly without using the LCD.

A small update to my original post. I have been out of the water for months due to a sinus infection requiring surgery (be careful about swimming in fresh water pools on small south pacific islands). But I am going to be doing a test dive in a pool in a few weeks and then hopefully back diving soon. Anyway, I have had months to think about the camera situation and here is where I have landed: I would like to stay with Nikon because of the lenses I have that will work with an FTZ, and I also have Nikon bodies and lenses for above water photography. But, I think either Canon or Nikon will be producing a "D500 grade" mirrorless crop sensor camera in the next year and I will likely "upgrade" (more of a cross-over, really) to one of those. It sort of seems like Canon is more interested in the concept that crop sensor cameras are not just cheaper smaller cameras for those who are not ready for full frame than is Nikon, and if that is so, a Canon camera is a distinct possibility. The reason for my conclusion is that I get the sense that my favorite underwater lens does not work as well as I would like on the Sony system and the A6700 fails to tick a couple of boxes for me. I absolutely love the Nikon 8-15 on DX and would be happy with the Canon 8-15 on aps-c, so that is driving my decision. That said, none of this is inscribed on a stone tablet and my opinion may change with time and new products from Nikon, Canon or Sony. Until then, the D500 works fine.

I see no sign that the major manufacturers have any interest in fisheye lenses, at least in the near future. It also seems that the performance of DSLR fisheyes on adapters is OK at best. I wonder if, as more and more people use mirrorless cameras, we will end up moving away from fisheye lenses underwater, at least at the hobbyist level as opposed to the professional and hardcore enthusiasts. I am not stating a position, just thinking about this. A canon 8-15 lens is about US$1200 and a Metabones V is $400. Add whatever extension rings and a port are needed, along with sales tax and we are talking about $3000 for an "OK" lens that many say is bested by a WWL and a kit lens. Don't get me wrong...I am very fond of my 8-15 Nikkor on my D500, but in mirrorless land, I wonder if we are heading in a different direction and fisheye lenses will just be a thing of the past?

I don't own the Sony or any Canon lenses, so this is really just academic interest, but wondering which adapter works best to use a Canon 8-15 on the Sony, and how good the focus speed an accuracy really are with any of the adapters, or if it is just a lost cause.

I don't have a personal problem with lithium, but cannot legally pack them in luggage unless installed, so sometimes a minor hassle to carry. I fly to dive. I do end up with several lithiums anyway, but using the superchargers and eneloop pros I can get through quite a few shots before needing a change. I guess its kind of a "don't fix it if it isn't broken thing." That said, I am usually near the front of the line for new toys. On the rechargeable battery side of things, I have managed to get almost everything to USB-C and that makes things simpler. I am looking forward to seeing the lithium pack and evaluating if it is something I "need."

Finally got the new Retras wet this past week. Performance not night and day different from my earlier pair of Primes, but the pro Max are obviously brighter than the Primes. I think I am probably just going to use the superchargers as the "standard" most of the time. Now that I have had them in the water and they worked great, I will be putting the Primes up for sale. Interested to see what the rechargeable battery pack is like, but I try to minimize lithiums so unless there is a compelling upside, I may not switch.

I have not been to Coz for several years, but used Jeremy Anschel (Living Underwater). He would come to hotel to pick up gear, rinse and store it each day. His boat is a small 8 person max boat, fast enough to get to the distant sites. He is or was also one of the operators that would pick up at the small pier in town. Surface intervals on the beach or at a beach club. Has a camera rinse tank built into the boat.

I had not. I just looked at the XT-5 (online) and it looks interesting, but the system does not look very desirable for CFWA, with no fisheye lens available. Maybe there is an adapter I don't know about.

Thanks for the suggestion, but that would be too big a step “backwards” for me. I actually have a TG6 and Oly housing, and I use it on boats, beach, etc. But, the camera’s limitations would make underwater photography less enjoyable for me. Over the years I have moved from compact cameras to micro four thirds to APS-C and have appreciated the improved dynamic range and more flexible cropping options of the slightly larger format and improved performance of the more sophisticated cameras. Like everyone, I would like a smaller and lighter system, but am not willing to give up the benefits I found with the DSLR. Although I would like to reduce size and weight a little, I don’t yet want to sacrifice the features I enjoy. Of course, that means any size reduction would be limited. But I can dream…. I am just not willing to give up a 45-degree viewfinder, reduced shutter lag, interchangeable lenses and the tech advances that incorporated into more expensive (and larger) cameras. Since I will use a bracket, arms, buoyancy and two strobes, even a TG6 becomes much larger but without adding the things that I enjoy about the larger cameras. We all want a camera that that is light and small to travel with but offers the features and benefits of a D850 or A1 or whatever. If I had to buy something new tomorrow, I would likely decide between an A6700 and a Canon R7. Although I found myself looking at the full frame options, I would really rather stay with a cropped sensor. I also use my Nikons for wildlife and nature photos and have a variety of long and landscape lenses that would work fine with an FTZ adapter, so it would probably be wise to stick with Nikon. Although probably unlikely, I am hoping some interesting APS-C Nikon might appear, preferably in a size to compete with the A6700 and R7. The problem will likely be that the manufacturers tend to view the APS-C as "lower level" cameras that should be released at lower price points and therefore do not always use the latest and best tech in them. But I can live with that if need be.

For those of you who use the Cinebags SG, do you take as your larger carry-on that goes in the overhead compartment, or as an underseat bag? Do you have any contingency plan in the event an airline insists you have to check it?