JohnD

OP: If I remember right, my first "real" underwater setup was and Olympus E330. I progressed over time to an Olympus EM1 and used that for several years. Focusing in lower light and fast moving subjects was not always ideal and dynamic range always seemed a bit limited to me. I shot mostly wide angle. I later moved to a Nikon D500 and was delighted with it, although I missed the small size of the Olympus. Over the past year I have decided to move to mirrorless camera and spent a lot of time agonizing over what to get, because I would have liked to move to a smaller setup if possible. What I found was that when considering housings and ports the weight and size differences between any of the full frame and crop sensor camera options is not very great, usually within an inch or so in any dimension, and weight differences were a max of 2 lbs. Once you add arms and strobes and focus lights, the differences get even smaller. The few crop sensor options out there involved compromises I did not want, for a small size and weight savings. I also love using my fisheye zoom lens and did not want to lose that, which affected my decision. The crop-sensor formats are great for underwater use, perhaps unless you intend to make really massive photo sizes, but the camera manufacturers seem to now view them as an entry-level camera format and are slow to release new stuff and often new lenses are aimed at a different market. I moved from the Nikon D500 to a Z8 primarily because my old eyes were having trouble seeing the LCD display clearly and I wanted to have an electronic viewfinder, otherwise, the D500 with an 85 or 60mm macro or the 8-15 fisheye did everything I wanted. Going full frame was a byproduct, not a goal. I considered going back to M43, since I still have many ports and lenses, but since that since the product line was taken over by OM, I feel that real improvements have been minimal and they have not really invested in the product line in a way I would want to see. I am sometimes unsure if the product line will continue, at least as a contender for underwater use. My comments are subjective and based on my skill and usage. Others will feel differently and some here do great work with the format. If I were in your situation and I heavily prioritized size and weight, I would get an OM system camera, probably the OM1 Mkii. There are some relatively less expensive housing options if desired, such as from AOI, although I am fond of Nauticam. If willing to consider greater size and cost for potentially improved quality (or maybe just it being easier to take better photos?), would look closely at the options from Sony, Canon and Nikon, balancing cost, size, weight, port and lens availability and size and, of course features sets. If you also want to do video, that can change things. In any case, pay attention to flash sync speed (I think 160 is too slow), and focus speed and accuracy, minimum focus distance of the lenses of interest and so on. Any system that does not do what you want is going to frustrate you. Figure out what lens(es) you will want for any camera you are considering and be sure you like the lenses and ports available in that system. As you can tell from some of the posts above, some lenses are well-regarded, and some not so much. Burst photo rates, massive ISO ranges and "creative" photo options are not important (to me). Battery life can also matter, as changing batteries at depth can be challenging. I have never used Ikelite housings, but I have never seen much enthusiasm for them on photo-centric forums like this, so make of that what you will. Also some housing systems are better supported on different continents, in case that matters. Good luck.

Funny about the tools. When I used to go to Cozumel often, airport security coming back to the USA would not allow ANY batteries other than those installed in things to be carried on...Lithium, Eneloops, Energizers...it did not mater. I learned this from having numerous eneloops and alkaline batteries taken away. Of course TSA in the U.S. did not allow lithiums in luggage and if I packed a bunch of eneloops in luggage, I had trouble staying under the allowed weight and my bags were frequently opened and inspected, which I worried about. So between myself and my wife and my son, I started taking about a dozen cheap flashlights or other battery-operated devices in carry-ons, all stuffed with batteries. Worked great and I still have the electronic Trojan horses around here somewhere. Then on one trip I asked my son to pack my tool kit for me, because I was close to the max weight. He put my tools in his carry-on. So much for my tool kit.... But I no longer go to Cozumel to dive due to the camera and lens scam. I just am not going to play that. Plenty of other locations where customs agents don't try to rob me. Frankly, the way airfare is now, I get to the Caymans, St. Maarten, Fiji, Tahiti or the Philippines for not much more than it costs to go to Cozumel, although it does take longer.

Thank you. That was all very valuable. I am sure we will do Apo island once and are not planning on Oslob. Since I will be also learning to use my Retra LSD and the MFO 3 while there, I think I will just stick with macro on this trip. I have traditionally done far more WA and CFWA than macro so it is time to immerse myself in macro for this trip, and learn some new techniques and gear.

Heading to Philippines in a few weeks. I anticipate primarily macro, of course, but keep wondering if it is worth taking a WWL or 8-15 along, perhaps for Apo island. This is my first trip there and hoping for some input. I have a suspicion I would not use either, and luggage restrictions and all that.... Thanks for any help. JD

Kristin: At the moment Reef Photo has what looks like a very slightly used R50 camera and lens, Nauticam housing tray and arms for $1728.00 It would need a different port or an add-on diopter or wwl or whatever, but otherwise, I think that cold be a good choice with room to grow and I think that is about $800 less than new retail. *I do a lot of business with reef but have no other connection with them or with that camera and housing.

Nauticam does list both 24-70 lens as usable with WACP and 180 domes. I agree with what is said above, not likely usable with WWL. The 24-70 f4 with a WACP-C might be an interesting choice. The 24-70 is surely a better lens than the 24-50 above water and might be so underwater.

Timely topic. After getting advice from some here, I have purchased an LSD, which has not shipped yet. I know that I will need some method to carry the thing during shore entries, on and off boats and perhaps when not "on" a subject. I have been looking for some pouch/pocket options to consider once I have the ting and can get accurate measurements. I think mesh might be best. Some I am considering (but not sure they will work) include: Zeagle Expandable Quick Pocket (probably too narrow) Scubapro S-Tek Expedition Thigh Pocket Apeks WTX Mesh Expansion Pocket Zeagle Tech Utility Pocket Zeagle Zena Utility Pocket Force6 9x3 pocket Since I don't have the LSD yet, theses are based on a lot of guesswork. I am not sure which Amazon product Tim chose, and when I looked there were a lot of possible options. Maybe the list above will help Chris and others and I would love any thoughts about what I am considering. They are mostly somewhat expensive for pockets and I don't want to have to buy and return a bunch of stuff.

I will post when i get everything and try it out.

I had not even thought about looking at the magnification differences. Being dense, I guess. Thank you for the explanation.

This is just idle curiosity, I suppose, but many of you are much more technically adept than am I. So maybe someone can explain: I happened to notice that a Nauticam wwl-c on a Nikkor 24-50 lens has a converted field of view of 130 to 81 degrees. The wwl-1 with the same lens and camera has a converted FOV of 130-72. I would have thought that any difference might have been on the wide end since with the wwl-c, the lens can be used at 24mm while on the wwl-1, the soom range should be limited to 28mm on the wide end. I am guessing it is just a result of the optical construction, but it confounds me. Perhaps the optical design accentuates the wide end (to allow 24mm) and that resulted in a reduction in the effects at the long end? If this is a technically stupid question, please be gentle.

So....I went ahead and ordered the Saga dual flip. I will try it out but also take the single flip along, in case the double flip experiment fails. Chris, in the absence of any other feedback, I checked with Reef Photo and was told that although there is no clip, there is a strong detent or spring mechanism that will hold the diopter or whatever firmly in place. They suggested the Nauticam was not worth the large price difference. I will try it out when it arrives.

Well, for me, I like the MFO-1 because it gives just a bit of extra magnification which makes it easier to use than the SMC, and also increases the focusing distance allowing more versatility. It may have been over-hyped and may not have been the miracle lens that it at first seemed, but it suits me, and I would prefer to have it. However, I am unsure how annoying a double flip might be in general and more so with the fairly large MFO-3, and whether that potential bulk and weight outweighs the benefit of also having the MFO-1. Of course, I realize this is highly subjective, but I guess that was really the question. And, also whether the Nauticam version is really worth almost twice the price of the Saga? My guess is no, but I have not used either.

That is my general feeling as well. But I watched Alex's video and he seemed to feel it worked OK even on a double flip. Although, it would be nice to have both the "1" and "3" available. "First World" problems, eh?

Having been to Volivoli and Paradise, I would suggest trying to make the liveaboard work if financially possible. My land resort experiences in Fiji have not been great. This is just me and others seem to have good experiences, so you may have different expectations and maybe I just caught those places at a bad time. But, I won't be going back to Fiji except on a liveaboard.

Hi All: I have ordered the MFO-3. I currently enjoy using the MFO-1 on my 105 Nikkor and am trying to decide if it is worth getting a double flip so I can use both, or if I should stick with a single flip for the MFO-3 and just uunscrew and stow the MFO-1 or leave it off when using the "3" I have never used a double before and they look cumbersome to me. And, if going with the double, is it worth the premium price for the Nauticam over the Saga? I am sure some of you have experience with this and I look forward to advice. Thank you in advance

Thanks guys: Okay, one snoot, that makes sense. I am leaning towards the Retra, in part because I already have Retra strobes. Tim, I assume you leave off diffusers or macro rings on the left side strobe so you can attach the snoot without fumbling around? I still need to consider size and weight. It looks like the LSD is 215mm long and the OS1 is 184mm, so not a huge difference, but it appears the MF2 is itself quite long so perhaps the assembled length is greater than the Retra strobe and LSD. . It seems that the OS1 much lighter (275g vs 600g), but if I take it in addition to my "primary" strobes the weight of the rig is greater. The trips will involve some diving from RIBS and perhaps other small boats and minimizing size and weight may be valuable.

I have generally been a CFWA guy and done only limited macro over the years. But I have two trips over the next several months to the Philippines and Indonesia, that will be almost exclusively macro, perhaps with some fish portraits and such thrown in. I anticipate primarily using the Z8 with a 105 and MFO-1. I am considering adding something like the Backscatter MF2 and snoot or alternatively I could get the Retra LSD to use with my Pro Max strobes which will be with me anyway, and would love to get some input from you macro experts. Edit to add; I previously failed to find some of the earlier discussions on this topic, so that has now answered some of my questions. Having read those, I am drawn to the MF2 due to smaller size / lighter weight and the idea of a small "backup" strobe is kind of appealing, but then it is one more thing to pack and one more lithium battery and I am sure I would be taking the Retras anyway, so... It sounds like most folks only use one snoot...correct? Is either of these (the LSD or MF2 with snoot) easier to aim or clip off when desired? I expect a learning curve but am hoping I can get the basics down in a pool before I go. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

I'm waiting for later this year when the Pro Max III come out.

"unlimited Budget?" Easy...... I would hire someone a lot better than I am to dive with me, And also pay their expenses. Have them agree the images/videos and copyright are mine. We swim around and I point to what I want photographed/filmed and then claim the image/video later. Problem solved. 😉

I never had any complaints about the D500 focusing. I have not noticed any significant difference so far. The Z8 may be faster, but I am not sure of that yet. I am still learning the finer points of the various modes on the D500 beyond 3D tracking. I pretty much always use AFC, so cannot really compare AFS focusing speed between the two. I tried the animal setting for eye tracking and that did not seem to be useful compared to simple 3d tracking. Next week I will be exclusively using the WWL-C and will experiment with some of the many focus options. I bought a Nauticam housing. I have used their housings for years with good results and have acquired numerous ports, extension rings and accessories so it is easy to stay with them for me.

Done

At the suggestion of TimG, I thought I would share this. Many, many years ago I got into photography and for a while, was a photographer for a major newspaper chain, doing mostly sports photography. Later I pursued other career options and recreational activities and did little photography. Eventually, I began taking pictures on beach vacations with my wife and kids and while snorkeling, using a compact camera in a cheap waterproof housing with no external flash or auxiliary lenses. I was not impressed with the results and when I later learned to scuba dive I went down the rabbit hole of dive photography, moving from compact to M43, to DX formats and now full frame. My very recent change has been to a Nikon Z8. That change was not prompted by format size...I find APS-C just fine for my purposes. But my vision has changed and underwater find it hard to use the back LCD screen as well as before. I have only taken one dive trip with the Z8, so am still learning the camera and adjusting a couple of lens changes that go along with that. Here is what I have found so far: The electronic viewfinder is great. Bright and contrasty and highly adjustable. The ability to use just the viewfinder when I want to has been great and has allowed me to make adjustments and reshoot a subject more quickly and efficiently than with the DSLR. For Caribbean diving, I have been enjoying the fairly compact WWL-C. On a given dive I may shoot blennies, jawfish and nudibranchs and then a loggerhead turtle or shark or reef scene and the flexibility is nice and the optic pretty compact. My general belief is that it is better to have one type of photography in mind on a given dive, but I seem to end up on a lot of smallish dive boats where I don't know what dive site I am going to until I am on the boat that morning, and often can't really plan on being able to change lenses and ports on the boat and will need to keep up with the guide and group in the water, and not spend 10 minutes minutes getting a shot or looking for a specific subject. On other dive trips or when I am shore diving, I will take the 105 or the 60 macro lens or the 8-15, FTZ and a 140 dome and the WWL-C will likely stay home. I believe I can alos use the 60 and 8-15 in DX mode if I want, giving some additional flexibility and permitting me to use a kenko 1.4. Not sure if that will be worthwhile, but I like experimenting. Overall, I think I am enjoying the Z8 a little more than the D500, and the size and weight difference is minor. Of course, great photos can be taken with much smaller cameras and simpler setups. It is the person not the equipment that matters, but I am something of the photo equivalent of a motorhead (lenshead?) and can get carried away with the toys pretty easily. I may have more insights after my trip next week.

I think corner sharpness importance depends entirely on the photo. Where the corners or edges are blue water or sand or dark, etc., it is often unimportant, but sometimes, softness of the corners can detract from the image. For me, I just like to know what to expect at different apertures so I can make informed choices. But I agree we can become obsessed with the issue. Compromises must be made sometimes, and I am not one to magnify an image to examine the corners or edges. Some of my questions are related to the fact that I just moved from my trusty D500 DX camera to the Z8, so am still in the honeymoon period and getting familiar with the differences.

Thanks Chip, I appreciate the info. Kind of what I expected from prior WWL use but that was on M43. From my limited experience with this version so far, f11-13 seems about right and I will try some shots at f8 when i get to dive it again in a week. I might try it more open, but doubt I will be happy with DOF and edges.

That looks vaguely familiar. I have this memory of using the WWL-1 around f11 on M43 and that is the aperture where I started with the WWL-C that I am using with the Nikon. If I can, I will try some test shots at wider apertures, but sometimes on dive trips conditions aren't right to make any meaningful comparisons. I am sort of guessing I could go to f8 before things get too soft, but don't know.