JohnD

Thanks Phil, not surer how I missed the details on the Marelux page. I was mostly curious about minimum focus rather than maximum, and obviously cannot get much shorter than 0. Hopefully someone can share some experiences with the lens.

I would also love to see some comparisons or tests. I am not saying that as some sort of challenge or dispute. I have found the MFO to be very useful, and if the MV60 does it better, even without being better to the point of "crushing" the MFO, I want one. I would also be curious about working distance and magnification comparison, especially working distance. I just looked and cannot find those on the Marelux website.

I sometimes put a ND on the front, so the threaded portion of the overpriced Nauticam piece is perfect for that.

👍 By the way, as soon as I can get around to it, I will post a brief review on the forum of my testing of the Flexibuoy.

Phil: Well, that all makes sense and was the question that no one seemed able to answer. In one of your shots you show an SMC mounted on the Marelux flip and sitting nearby is the spacer ring. I take it the NA lenses work correctly on the flip without a spacer? I was intrigued by the hydraulic aspect and that's what got me looking at this and interested in getting one.

I recently saw that Marelux has introduced their own double flip holder with a novel feature, for wet lenses. I am/was interested in this, and specifically, whether the Nauticam threaded spacer ring would be necessary to use Nauticam lenses like the MFO and SMC with the holder and if so, whether the standard spacer ring would work on the holder (it does not, for example, fit on an AOI or Saga holder; they require a different spacer). I contacted Marelux and half-expected them to say they had not tested Nauticam products on their flip holder, which would be understandable. Instead, they just responded to me with a link to the website product page and a note that I was "welcome to check." Perhaps mentioning I wanted to use Nauticam products on their holder was a mistake. I then spoke to a Nauticam dealer I deal with often, in case they had any info and of course, was told they had no idea about the Marelux product, which I pretty much expected. So I reached out to a Marelux dealer who also sells Nauticam, and asked about it. I was told the Marelux double flip holder only works with the Marelux brand wet lenses, which seemed odd, since all these products have a 67mm thread, but whatever. So I thought I would ask here in case anyone, perhaps Phil Rudin, could confirm what I was told or provide other info, mostly just out of curiosity at this point.

I love the mfo-3 on my 105 or on the olympus 60mm. Nauticam makes and overpriced "M82 Filter Holder for MFO-3" It allows the use of a lens cap and I use an 82 mm threaded lens hood on it at times. Of course, 3D printer experts like Dave Hicks could make something better.

Some years back I read about and heard about BBF and how wonderful it was. All the cool kids did it, you know. So I set up my camera for it and did the back button thing for a long time. It was fine. It worked. I was able to coordinate my thumb and forefinger fine. But as time went by it seemed that although it was fine and worked, it did not do anything "better" for me and my style of underwater shooting. I began to wonder if it really made sense to use two fingers on two different buttons to accomplish what one finger on one button could do just fine. It also was not the most comfortable on some vertical shots. Maybe it depends on the camera or housing? I switched to using he shutter release button (well, the Nauticam lever) for both focus and shutter release. I am probably not allowed to have lunch at the cool kid's table anymore, but otherwise, I don't feel I am missing anything and I now have an additional, conveniently located button that I can program to do something else. Again, this is for me and for my style of underwater photography. I am not saying one way is wrong or right. Vive la différence.

OK, that is interesting. I assume that this means you need wide and not macro, and do not want fisheye-like distortion. If that is correct and size and weight matter, I would definitively look hard at micro four thirds because the small lenses permit smaller dome ports for rectilinear wide angle. There are a number of zoom lenses from Panasonic and Olympus that can be used as wide as 7-12mm range on the wide end (14-24mm in full frame speak) and all work in a 170-180mm dome, which large-ish but not unreasonable to travel with. You might even be able to use some in a 140mm dome if you can tolerate the loss of image quality. I never tried that combination. That same 170-180 port size could also work with some of the APS-C lenses form other camera brands. I am most familiar with Nikon and OM, so I don't have specific suggestions.

I was talking to another diver/photographer friend a few weeks ago before we were to meet on Grand Cayman, and I mentioned that I was going to bring a MFT setup as a reduced size and weight experiment. He asked me what strobes I was using and I told him I planned on bringing the Retra Maxis. He laughed and I realized that two strobes that were each about the size of the housing and weighing over 1kg each did sort of undermine my small and light concept.

CCRphoto: I am currently using a full frame Nikon underwater but have begun experimenting with going back to micro four thirds (MFT) for travel weight and size reasons. I previously used MFT for several years and would add the following for consideration: I use nauticam housings, so the choices are based on that. For macro, the Oly 60mm and Panasonic 45mm are excellent. I have not used the 90mm lens and doubt I will do so. For extreme wide angle and CFWA, I like the the Oly 8mm fisheye in a 100mm Zen or 140 Nauticam dome port, or second choice, Panasonic 8mm in the same ports. The 12mm Oly is also good for a rectilinear choice Alternatively, a 14-42 or 12-32 lens behind a WWL or WWL-C works well. I found the Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 II ASPH MEGA OIS LUMIX G Vario to be the best 14-42 with the WWL, compared to the other 14-42 options from Panasonic and Olympus. I don’t care for the zoom operation of the EZ and PZ lenses. You may feel different about that. The 12-32 lens works well behind the WWL-C and many above water tests suggest it is a sharper lens than the 14-42 lenses. While none of those kit lenses are what I would choose on land, they work well in the water with the WWL and WWL-C. The other lens I enjoyed was the 12-40 behind a 180mm dome, but decided the weight and size of that option defeated the purpose of using micro four thirds stuff. At various times I experimented with the 12-50, 7-14, and some other lenses, but finally settled on those I list above as all I really needed and the 8mm with dome port or WWL are alternatives on any dive trip, depending on destination and goal. I would not take both of those. I supplement with various wet lenses like the CMC, MFO, etc. I am unsure whether I will go back to MFT, as I am happier with the results of APS-C and full frame, but that is probably a personal skill issue, not a hardware issue. Generally, I feel APS-C is the sweet spot, and if Nikon does decide to produce a D500 replacement Z camera, that is something I would be very interested in. So far, it seems that camera companies have been withholding some of the best tech from their crop sensor cameras and offering limited lens choices. I hope that whatever you choose, it brings you many hours of enjoyment. Oh, I also recommend the Retra strobes or if you want something smaller, look at the Atom.

FWIW, I needed glass on a macro port replaced. My Nauticam dealer service guy did not charge for the labor, just price of glass and shipping. Said it would take about 10 minutes. Might be worth checking with your usual source of Nauticam (or whatever brand you have) to see what they would charge. I think shipping cost on a port was well worth avoiding the stress of doing it myself.

I wonder if this would be true of the ULM laser trigger as well

A few thoughts: I think the Retra products are great. The strobes are not the smallest but not overly huge. I don't think the Maxis are larger in diameter than the Pro Max, as I can use the same diffusers and macro rings on both of them. The Maxis are about as large as the Pro Max with boosters on the Pro Max, but the Pro Max are shorter than the Maxis if not using the boosters. I don't like the Maxis much for wide angle unless I use a dome diffuser, mostly because the color temp is not as nice, but the pro max are fine without. With diffusers, the Maxis are fine for wide angle and good for macro without needing diffusers, and a good price. I got those because I want to experiment a bit with some video and did not want to get dedicated video lights. I can't say how many shots I get with the Pro Max, but they easily get me through 2-3 dives and would probably go at least one more. With boosters on, I have gone six dives without a battery change, but I shoot fewer pictures on each dive than a lot of people seem to. Extensive snooting or or full power would probably not allow that many dives. Generally, when I charge the batteries, they seem to only be about 50-60% discharged. I have a trip in the Caribbean in a few weeks and am not going to take the boosters as I will only be doing 2-3 dives a day and don't expect to be running the strobes very hard. Note that ordering from Retra to the USA means using DHL shipping and when I got my Pro Max strobes, DHL hit me with something like $300 in customs duties and related fees, that I believe was a dramatic overcharge, so when I bought my Maxis, I bought them from Reef Photo. The Pro Max II are just too expensive for me to justify. I have lights and strobes using lithium batteries, including the Maxis, and there are benefits to these, but I also see a distinct benefit in using AA batteries. Airlines are beginning to crack down on lithiums, including not allowing them in overhead compartments and limiting the number carried, and these restrictions may increase. Resorts and liveaboards are placing restrictions on charging lithiums other than in locations and at times when they can be monitored. Strobes with AA batteries don't have those issues. Self promotion: I have a pair of very clean and lightly used Prime strobes with boosters I have been thinking I should sell, but have not gotten around to it. Let me know if interested and I can figure out a price.

Makes sense. One other thought is that perhaps lenses with high undesirable distortion when used in air could benefit from mitigation of the that distortion, or simply the lessened visual impact of it, when used in water. Maybe not? I shoot pictures and know very little about designing lenses.

I am suggesting this as a thought, not a position I am taking... Could it be that some lenses, due to their optical design, degrade less than others and some lenses that are "superior" on land may be more more degraded underwater and thus the "lesser" lens on land is superior underwater. (If that word salad makes sense) To me, shooting underwater is somewhat like shooting through a dirty-ish window on land. Even if we can correct for how light is transmitted underwater and deal with water-caused distortion, seawater is not clear, especially when we are more than inches away. But anyway, I wonder if a lesser lens might, in some cases hold up better underwater and thus be the better lens than alternatives, and the inherent detrimental effects of seawater also mask some of the lens' shortcomings?

In fairness, and unlike the sometimes silly airline carry-on weight and size limitations, lithium batteries are a risk and none of us has any way to know what kind of cheap or damaged or over-discharged batteries our fellow travelers might be carrying. I have done a fair bit of traveling recently and dive resorts and liveaboards are also imposing lots of restrictions. No charging batts in cabin or room unless you are present, no overnight charging anywhere, etc. I have mostly stopped taking power banks because of the limitations and have stopped leaving batteries in devices in checked bags, even AA batts,. Although technically legal, I beleive that was the cause of my bags being pulled and inspected twice and I don't want to increase the risk of bag delays, theft, etc. I have been a good boy and take lithium batteries in proper containers and if in devices, they are fully charged and blocked from being activated, but we are all subject to the consequences of others' carelessness or bad decisions. Unfortunately this is all happening at the same time light and strobe manufactures are using more lithium batteries in the equipment. I purchased a dive light online recently and was disappointed to see it came with an unprotected, no-name battery and protected batteries are too long to work in the light. I understand and appreciate the benefits of the lithium technology, and am fine with exercising proper precautions myself, but it may put us in a bit of a conflict with increasing airline, boat and resort rules, as fires and other issues ramp up, due in no small part to careless behavior by others. Of course there is nothing new in that.

I don't know the details because I have never used it, but I believe there are ways to use the 12-50 lens in a 65 port without the expensive gear. Also deepshots in the UK offers a gear for that lens under $100, although I am unsure what it can do. I suspect others here can explain all of this. I have always heard far more enthusiasm for the Panasonic 14-42 mega (not the collapsing PZ) with the wwl than any of the other lenses for this purpose, but I have not compared them. That lens requires the 35 flat port. That port, with either a 10mm or 30mm extension ring then works with the various 30, 45 and 60mm macro lenses for the M43 system. In other words, with just the 35 port and the 30mm ER, you could shoot with the WWL or the 45 macro or 60 macro, saving a bit of $ on ports and less to pack for travel. Just something to think about.

Thank you. I am going to book Crystal Blue. I agree on the house reef point. I often have some new technique or piece of gear I want to learn or experiment with or some photo skill I want to learn or practice and being able to go out and on a shore dive and take my time doing that is easier than on a boat dive while the guide is finding fascinating stuff and/or I don't want to hold back the other divers. Of course, despite what I just said, I then often suffer FOMO and cannot pass on the boat dive. Living in a landlocked area, I cannot really do that stuff except on dive trips, so I am conflicted.

Good points. Thank you. If Tim does not chime in, I may send him a message. I can see that both are solid choices. Do you feel the shore dives on the house reefs are more-or-less equal or is one of them "better." Not sure I wold spend much time there given the number of boat locations available, but curious.

Thank you. For some reason, when I search, your post that you linked does not come up, although the thread does, so I did not see your description of the two places. When I searched before I did see a variety of posts about Anilao and about Mike Bartick/Crystal Blue and Photo Academy doing blackwater dives, but did not find, and was hoping for, some additional comparisons between the resorts I am considering. I did not check the old site, although I should have, I guess. Being one of those who was booked on the infamous Red Sea trip to nowhere, the website reminds me of that whole mess and I try to stay away, despite the wealth of accumulated knowledge to be found in the forums.

Thanks for your response. I am actually surprised more people did not have opinions on this, considering the popularity of Anilao.

Yes, we did, but I had some additional info and a link to a much less expensive scratch brush than Backscatter is selling, so I thought that merited a direct response.