JohnD

I often travel with batteries in some flashlights and other devices. I use expired DAN cards that I cut into discs the size of the device opening / battery diameter, and place those between the positive end of the battery and the device contact. There is no possibility of powering the device or draining the battery. The little plastic discs are thin enough not to interfere in reassembly of the flashlight and I will often not fully tighten the flashlight head just to be extra sure there is no undo pressure on the device contact.. This is basically the same as manufacturers placing those little plastic tabs on installed batteries on products you buy.

I leave batteries in INONs almost all the time and I have had zero issues, diving 3-4 times per month over nearly 10 years. Springs also tend to fatigue from repetitive flexing flexing once and keeping it that way is less likely to cause an issue. With INONs at any rate you can replace the spring clips or work on them as they are a separate piece. I agree. I suspect Inon was being overly cautious, but I tend to follow Mfr warnings and advice. Having batteries in boxes allows to put them in jacket pockets. 32 AA in 4 boxes give a total of more than 1,2kg. Combining with other heavy items in jacket (macro lenses, ..), you can stay at a reasonable bag weight (even if above, but not too much). You cannot do it with batteries remaining in strobes. You are right. It depends on destination for me. Sometimes the airlines care about weight of carry-on bags, other times only size matters, and sometimes it is both. My practice varies accordingly. I am interested to hear what Oskar might say. From his earlier post, I am pretty sure Retra has no issue with transporting batteries installed (although I would be sure strobes cannot be powered up).

I believe the warning also pertained to leaving batteries in the strobes for long periods because of the risk of bending or flattening the terminals and causing poor connections. The battery terminals in the Inons were sort of like 'wings" and the force of batteries could bend the wings, especially with heavier batteries like eneloops. This is from memory and i could be mistaken. I never had a problem but I tend to follow instructions.

This is interesting. Inon recommends, or at least used to recommend, that batteries not be left in strobes during travel to avoid risk of damage to the terminals in the strobe. Does Retra not have this concern? Packing would be marginally easier of I could put 4 or 8 batteries in each strobe during travel.

I have been diving in Mexico (primarily Cozumel) for about 18 years and have traveled to Mexico fo holidays for years before that, and have a relative living in Mexico. There have always been "issues" traveling there, including phony traffic stops (you can pay your ticket right here or go to the police station with me and it might take hours) and gas station scams, etc., etc. But these have traditionally been minor scams costing relatively little and largely local in nature. Organized, government sponsored or at least tolerated scams costing hundreds of dollars are another thing. When this "customs" thing started in Cabo, I knew it would spread. it is just too good a scheme not to. Coupled with the diminishing quality of diving in Cozumel, I have simply abandoned Cozumel as a dive destination for the foreseeable future. Sure, you can buy a carnet, or hide your gear in nondescript luggage, etc., and Cozumel is pretty convenient for me to get to, but it just isn't worth it to me. There are other islands where divers and photographers are not (or at least less) viewed as prey. If people stop going, the ripoff might eventually stop, but until then we are just feeding the wildlife while simultaneously hoping it will stop coming to us for food. But I do wish you luck if you are going there. Try not to look like a sheep, and the wolves might not notice you.

I have no experience with the Kraken, but they look good on paper. I have used retras for some time and have been very satisfied. If the capacity is sufficient, I have to take eneloops and a couple of sizes of lithiums for strobes and lights and focus lights alrready, but I have some preference for using eneloops in the Retras over adding more big lithiums, due to safety concern, but that is just a personal thing. I have appreciated the Retra app and the ability for firmware upgrades and 'fixes" through that app. I don't know if Kraken offers something similar. Retra seems to have a history of promptly responding to questions and issues and I appreciate that kind of service. Not sure any of this helps much, but I guess it at least a data point?

Just guessing...protection of the front element? I can see where that could be useful around coral if not too much of a hindrance in general. If it is protection then a wider and shorter shade than one might normally use for a 90 or 105 might be the way to go. I have an MFO-1 on order and looking forward to experimenting with it in a few weeks.

That is disappointing. I am thinking I want of these for use on a 105, before trips to Philippines and Sulawesi next year. I guess I need to get the screw on spacer or something else?

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.