JohnD

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.

In case my thoughts are of interest or help to anyone deciding on a new camera, I thought I would share my thoughts: As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am considering moving from a D500 to a mirrorless camera. My primary reason is the enhanced capabilities of the electronic viewfinder, due to some recent eyesight issues. Using the LCD on the back of D500 when underwater is frustrating now. I would like the ability to do pretty much everything through the viewfinder including reviewing shots. I am also interested in what apepars to be improved focus accuracy and speed. Otherwise, I am happy with the DX format and the D500 in general and that influences my choices. Every camera option besides Nikon involves a variety of adapters and extensions and other bits and pieces, and at a minimum I would likely have to purchase a Canon 8-15 and some macro lens to replace what I have now. There are issues with some of the Nikon brand alternatives, especially in APS-C, including flash sync speed, viewfinder brightness and clarity and focus speed. Also, I intend to continue using Nikon for above water photography due to an extensive collection of lenses, so staying in the same system will simplify things some. But I am not thrilled with the Z50II. Comparing Nauticam housing sizes, and looking at the Canon R7, Sony A7RV, A7Cii, A6700, Nikon Z50, Nikon Z6 and Nikon Z8, the difference from largest housing to smallest was generally within 1-2 inches in any dimension (L, W, H). In some cases, the difference was less than 1 inch or so in any given dimension. The leading non-Nikon contender is the A7RV. The Z8 housing is .6” longer, 1.33” wider, and 1.4” taller than the A7RV. Not a stunning difference. Yes, I could save size by going to a different housing manufacturer, but I doubt that I would do so. Staying with Nauticam allows me to keep using my current vacuum valves, handstraps, M10 ball mounts and handles, and saves me from trying to adapt or buy new ports or adapters. It also allows me to use the Nauticam angled viewfinder Housing size is a factor for travel, but by the time we add ports, strobes, arms, focus lights, etc., it is hard to really shrink a system without going to M43 or a compact, or perahs the A6700. I have done the M43 thing before and am happier in a larger format. When Dave Hicks reminded me that I could always shoot a Nikon Z8 in DX, and I thought about the lenses and ports and zoom rings I already had, and the land-based lenses I intend to keep, it made a lot of sense to stick with Nikon and whether Nikon will ever produce a D500-grade DX mirrorless is unknown. So, barring any sudden epiphany, I think the way to go for me is a Z8, on which I can use my 8-15 lens in DX mode in the 100 and 140 ports I already have, and even use the Kenko 1.4 if I want. Or I can use the 8-15 as a fixed 15mm in FX mode in the 140 dome, although I suspect the corners may be iffy. I will add a WWL-C for use with the 24-50 Z lens and that will be my primary “easy button” for Caribbean wide angle. I can continue to use my 105 and 60 lenses in the ports I have or upgrade to the Z105 and perhaps use my current port. I suppose I could alos use my 10-24 and other similar lenses, but I have mostly abandoned traveling with larger domes…just too much hassle. There is a rumor that Nikon is working on an FTZ adapter that would work with the older “screw drive” lenses and if that happens, it would open up some other fisheye options I have in a drawer, although there may not be much real utility in that. And Nikon is having a sale. Comments welcome.

Disregard. I found the thread. Don't know how I missed it the first time.

I intend to use the viewfinder,that is one of the motivating factors for mirrorless. I don't anticipate significant battery issues but I see nauticam now offers the ability to charge some cameras through a housing bulkhead and I assume I could take one of the power bricks and replenish the battery during a surface interval even in situations where opening the housing might be unwise.

I do have a Kenko 1.4 that I use with he D500. Do you know which versions work with the z8? I just tried a search but did not find what I needed.

You make a good point, Dave. If you don't mind, tell me about image review using the z8 through the viewfinder. One of my interests in the mirrorless is the ability to review and image quickly without using the LCD.

A small update to my original post. I have been out of the water for months due to a sinus infection requiring surgery (be careful about swimming in fresh water pools on small south pacific islands). But I am going to be doing a test dive in a pool in a few weeks and then hopefully back diving soon. Anyway, I have had months to think about the camera situation and here is where I have landed: I would like to stay with Nikon because of the lenses I have that will work with an FTZ, and I also have Nikon bodies and lenses for above water photography. But, I think either Canon or Nikon will be producing a "D500 grade" mirrorless crop sensor camera in the next year and I will likely "upgrade" (more of a cross-over, really) to one of those. It sort of seems like Canon is more interested in the concept that crop sensor cameras are not just cheaper smaller cameras for those who are not ready for full frame than is Nikon, and if that is so, a Canon camera is a distinct possibility. The reason for my conclusion is that I get the sense that my favorite underwater lens does not work as well as I would like on the Sony system and the A6700 fails to tick a couple of boxes for me. I absolutely love the Nikon 8-15 on DX and would be happy with the Canon 8-15 on aps-c, so that is driving my decision. That said, none of this is inscribed on a stone tablet and my opinion may change with time and new products from Nikon, Canon or Sony. Until then, the D500 works fine.

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.