JohnD

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?

The blue is a 90L The yellow is 66L.

Ok, well I learned something then...

I believe you want the UW Technics trigger if available for your camera. I have no personal experience with the trt trigger but have seen mixed reviews. I don't believe nauticam supports HSS

True on the size, but being a little OCD, it would nag at me if there was an option. And I guess there is and I missed it...

Thanks. Somehow I missed that.

For travel, I use a hardshell case, like a Pelican or Nanuk. Carry-on restrictions and gate agent hassles make it very stressful to try and carry housings and such on planes. I also have to take often multiple flights on different size aircraft, frequently with more than one airline. Dealing with all of that causes a lot of stress. Camera and lenses and sometimes a valuable nauticam wet lens will go with me on the plane in an "underseat' bag that no one ever hassles me about. I do have a carry-on sized Pelican roller that I use on occasion, but it can only hold housing and strobes or housing and a small port or two. I know Tim has had success carrying stuff onboard using a Cinebags Grouper case, but I don't have his charm and would have it taken by gate agents and I doubt it would survive the cargo hold. To and from boats I use a waterproof duffel. The blue one is large enough for housing with a WACP-C, the yellow one is smaller and works fine with a 100mm or 140mm dome or a flat port. I have layer of neoprene on the bottom from an old wetsuit and on the boat can either close it up or drape a microfiber towel over the rig, which will keep it wet. The bag also serves as rinse bucket later. I tried a Cinebags and something similar, and then a soft cooler, but they took a up a lot of room in luggage and did not work well to carry on planes. These offer no real impact protection but are easy to pack and fairly light. if I want more protection I can pad the gear with a towel or neoprene vest or whatever. nullnull

I agree on the pixel count and format. I still think that except perhaps for really large prints, APS-C continues to have more benefits than limitations. I am going to stick with the D500 for now, and watch the mirrorless developments. Rumors of an R7 II (or whatever) and a D500 equivalent mirrorless are interesting and if this is true, could keep the format alive and could me to "upgrade" later in the year or next year. APS-C is a good format choice for underwater and for wildlife, which appeals to me, and also sports. Increasingly, I am pulling back from a FF Sony idea. I love the tech, but don't really want a 61MP FF frame sensor camera. If I had to buy right now, I guess it would be the R7 or A6700, but I am holding off for a while. Although my NA D500 is not a small housing, I enjoy being able to use a 100mm dome on it with the 8-15 and have the zoom range instead of just 8mm or a circle, and I can easily add the 1.4 TC which gives a different perspective. The Tokina 10-17 does pretty much the same thing, of course. I suspect the rumored new Sigma fisheye won't be ideal, or perhaps even viable, but it would be great to see a good, underwater-suitable fisheye that does not need an adapter for the camera world.