JohnD

I understand your point, but I have doubts that just getting the usb port wet will cause a short. Mobile phones that are water resistant ("waterproof") have exposed USB ports and getting those ports wet does not do damage. You have to be sure the port is dry before running any current into it, of course. I am no electrical engineer, but I suspect if the USB cap leaked, you would not want to use it until at least it was rinsed in fresh water and dried, but I don't think it would fry the camera to just get wet. I always carry the original m16 cap on dive trips and if a vacuum valve, or now also the usb port, were to have a problem, I can pull them and replace with the original cap. I am not advocating you would use such a port in a RIB or on small skiff, or really any situation in which it is likely to get wet, but I can certainly see situations in which it would be much simpler and safer to pour a little some fresh water over the USB cap and dry it well than it it would to open up the housing and removing the camera and then reseal it all. Of course, this is just an accessory and is not needed and if it makes one uncomfortable then no need to bother with it. Without spending any time on the issue, here is one option that would work on a boat's camera table: an 11 gallon ziploc bag. It completely covers a Z8 housing and the power block and is tall enough to go over arms and strobes if desired. I feel it would protect against any incidental splashing or dripping form nearby gear or a diver walking by or whatever. Although I wouldn't, it could even be zipped closed to seal the rig form dust or moisture. Edit to add: I may have over-complicated things. I guess the really the simple way to look at it is that this is a gadget that may or may not make life easier. If not, don't get it! If it lets me open and close the housing less often, and/or charge a battery that is low when I otherwise would not want to open the housing to change batteries, then It makes life easier. If it floods the housing, shorts out the USB circuitry in the camera or causes some other problem, then it was a bad choice. But I think it is safe enough. Clearly its use requires some caution and care.

Although anything that provides an opening into a housing is a potential failure point, I suspect the vacuum and optical bulkheads are pretty safe. Still, a little bit of care and caution is warranted. I am surprised to hear a usb such as that we are discussing could short and damage a camera unless it was wet while charging. But I don't know. I would feel that removing, protecting and reinstalling the bulkhead cap is much less risky and easier to protect than opening the back of the housing. If it is an environment where removing the USB cap is particularity risky then I would certainly worry about opening up the back of the housing. For the USB, only a small area needs to be clean and dry before removal and has been mentioned, the cap can be placed in plastic bag while off and a similar bag can be placed over the bulkhead area while charging to minimize contamination. I don't think it is necessary but you can also buy silicone USB-C dust plugs that would perhaps reduce the risk of a problem in the event of moisture in the cap, I suppose.

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.

Yes. I have been watching for that for months, thinking it would be the D500 replacement. I became unsure whether it would ever appear or when, and realized it would likely not be much smaller than the Z8 or do anything for me that the Z8 would not. Now that I have purchased the Z8 and housing (that arrived yesterday), the Z90 is sure to be announced soon.

Hi; I saw this and just checked for a firmware update. I see nothing since July, 2024, Firmware 2.2. Should I be seeing a new update in Google Play or is this something that will appear soon?

I frequently do pack everything except camera and lenses in a hard case and check it, but I also use other strategies depending on destination, airline, aircraft and lens selection. Just last year I used the checked bag solution due to destination and carry-on weight restrictions. I paid over $400 in luggage fees (the bag was neither overweight or oversized, just a long trip with several legs). The case got “lost” and only found by me hours later using my Tile app. It had somehow found its way into the “lost luggage” area at LAX. Had I not gone and found it, I would probably never have seen it again, and certainly would not have had the gear on that trip. On a different trip, the gate attendant announced to everyone before boarding that the anyone in a boarding group higher than 5 would need to check their carry-on bags because the bins were almost full. I was in group 5. Without exaggeration, at least 1/3 of the bins were still empty and the flight attendants were going down the aisles closing the empty and partial bins. We took off with a lot of empty overhead bin space. Only relevant in that I usually assume any carry-on is at risk to be checked. Going to Fiji a few years ago, an airline employee walked around the departure area with a bunch of “cabin” tags. He would lift a bag and estimate if it was over 7kg, and either hand out a cabin tag or tell you it had to be checked. I failed the test but politely told him it was camera gear and got one of the coveted tags. On the way back, they weighted it at check in counter and insisted I check the bag and pay for it. In regard to insurance, my gear is insured via a rider on my homeowner policy. Trip insurance and the airline’s own lost bag coverage is pretty much useless. One of my strategies when the airline is focused on number and size instead of weight is an under-seat bag into which I can fit my camera, two lenses, and either my housing or my strobes. Thus, my curiosity about which should get packed or carried with me when I use that option

I am in the "take in the water with you" camp. I cannot count how many times I have seen folks hand their camera up and seen it get banged (frequently lens first) into gunwales, seats, poles, ladder railing, etc. I have seen cameras piled on top of each other on camera tables or left on the deck by crew rushing to get divers aboard, etc. Neoprene may not protect much against a dome being scraped across highly abrasive surfaces or banged into an aluminum dive table support or jammed up against against someone else's strobes, arms or handles. I assume those of you who mostly do photo-centric dive boats and liveaboards may not have this issue so much, but I am frequently on boats with crew that is less familiar with camera concerns. Mares, Dive Rite and other companies make pouches in sizes that can hold a WWL-sized hard cap. I get in the water with the pouch unzipped and it is easy to pop off the cap on descent and place it in the pocket and zip it closed. I have not had any problem removing the cap this way on a WACP-C. I am probably in the minority though. Most of the time I see even the neoprene covers left on board. Various forms of leashes or tethers would also work but I like the pocket on a shoulder strap or waist belt.

I am interested in hearing thoughts on this...I suppose this is really more of a "thought exercise" Over the years I have developed different strategies for getting gear safely to a dive location. It varies, depending on the airlines and specific aircraft involved. When possible, I like to take as much of the most fragile and/or most expensive stuff with me in the cabin, but sometimes I just have to check most things, other than the camera and lenses, in a suitable checked luggage case. With several airlines imposing a 7kg carry-on weight limit, and the weight of most bags alone being a couple kg or more, checking stuff has become more common. Anyway, the question I have is this...if forced to check either Retra strobes or a Nauticam housing in a hard-sided rolling case, which would you choose to check? The housing is more expensive, but I suspect the strobes might be more fragile, maybe? Gear insurance would ultimately cover at least some of the loss but the loss or destruction of either of these would prevent dive photography on that trip, so neither one is more "important" to have.

Thank you both for your input. It was time to fish or cut bait, so the new gear is now en route and in March I will spend some pool time learning the new camera and housing, getting a sense of buoyancy (to be adjusted for seawater later), and so on.

Concerned? Really, what could possibly go wrong? (not expressing any opinion on cause of fire...just using image as illustrative)

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.