JohnD

I almost put this into one of the existing MFO threads but then I thought it might deserve its own space. I am curious and interested in the MFO-1, but oddly, Nauticam has no instructions or manual for this thing on their website. Pretty much the only information they provide is sales-type stuff. I realize there are still few of these in the wild, but I am trying to understand its utility. If using the MFO-1, do we set focus limiters to the "infinity" setting and not suffer the hunting and focus speed issues that setting can cause, or use the reduced focus range setting? It seems like it would need to use the unlimited setting given the published focusing range, but ??? Perhaps I am just being dense, but maybe Edward Lai or someone else with knowledge could post some additional details about using the thing.

Well, my Z8 has not been in the water yet, so cannot answer your question, yet, but I did purchase the USB bulkhead. There are times in the past when I would have liked to do a battery change but was on a boat or a beach where it just seemed unwise to open the housing due to water, salt spray, blowing sand, etc. I am often diving from small boats filled with dripping wet divers and all kinds of wet gear getting moved around. Other times I want to leave the camera soaking between dives or overnight and have to dry it before opening the housing for a battery change. I have a waterproof power brick I take on dive trips anyway for other purposes so the relatively inexpensive bulkhead seems like a good addition to me. Certainly if I am doing lens/port changes anyway, it won't matter. Not at all a necessary accessory for most of us, but potentially handy.

Looking forward to your report...

There has also been a rumor that Nikon will be producing such an adapter as well.

Interesting points. I am still unclear on the value (to me) of the MFO-1. It seems great, but I have no idea if it reduces hunting/increases focus speed at normal at normal ranges.

I guess I should have said "arm segments" to be clear. Both segments on the left-side handle.

I did not read every post, so this may be redundant, but one of my sons insists on using only one strobe, mounted on two arms on the left side of a compact housing tray. That leaves his shutter release hand on the handle while he moves the strobe around. He mostly keeps the arms and strobe folded over the camera while swimming around, so the floats are pretty centered, and then moves the strobe around when shooting. he likes that setup because it is small and light and prefers it even though we have plenty of arms and floats and strobes around he could use. For me, once I went to two strobes years ago, i have never given any thought to switching back, but i can work, at least for macro / macro-ish.

You are right about the 30mm for the 105 F mount. I had a senior moment or something. As to the Tamron, I only meant that I had not spent enough time looking at port length to be sure what the best choice wold be. I am actually now thinking I should stay with the F mount 105 or get the Z mount 105 and pass on the Tamron.

I have used the 60 port for the 60 and added a 20mm extension for the 105. According to the port chart that would also work for the Z, but not, I think for the older 105 with the FTZ. Not sure if it would work for the Tamron or cause focusing and diopter issues. i have only done a blackwater dive once but would like to again.

Good points. It has always been great to have a place to have these discussions and I often end up re-thinking and researching new ideas and points of view. Although it was one of my two primary underwater lenses before, I am not seeing much likelihood of using the 60 on FX.

Well, I have a 105 that I can use with the FTZ. Everything I have read suggests it works well on mirrorless, but not quite up to the speed and reduced "hunting" of the z version, in addition to being longer and heavier than the newer lens. That has had me wondering if it is worth an upgrade. Probably not, but that has not stopped me in the past from buying new camera gear... The 90 would offer an option that is perhaps a bit faster focusing than even the z 105 and offer a slightly different focal length. My most-used underwater macro on DX has been the 60mm. 90mm on FX is the same focal length, and for most of my macro work I have not wished for a longer lens, so I think the 90 would be a comfortable choice. I still need to spend some time looking at distance to subject on the Tamron and make sure I am happy with that. Edit: Just saw Matthew's post above. I may want to think this through a bit more.

Thanks, guys. I am one of the half dozen people using Nikon and not Sony, so the direct comparison to the Sony 90 does not mean much to me, but the Tamron 90 looks interesting and somewhat overlaps but also complements a 105. After reading the reviews, I think I will get one.

Geez, I already get that but apparently missed the article. My bad.

I know it is fairly new, but was wondering if anyone has had any underwater experience with it yet?

Yes, have used most of the techniques at one time or another including the vest of many pockets. Air travel with dive camera gear has become a weird mixture of sport and aggravation for me. To quote Kenny Rogers... "If you're gonna play the game, boy, you gotta learn to play it right" I'm still learning. On the insurance, I pay what I feel is a reasonable amount for coverage that specifically includes the camera gear. I had to provide evidence of value and serial numbers for the more expensive stuff. I like it because it includes theft and accidental damage such a housing or strobe flood. It does cover loss by an airline, even if checked, less the few dollars the airline might pay.