dentrock

Thanks for the further comments. A couple of things: My 90 works fine on land (insect macro) and as I mentioned it was also fine behind flat ports, although I suppose I need to recheck that, as Chris suggested. I also checked for firmware updates, as I purchased mine years ago. But there are none (and none for the 50 macro). I reviewed yesterday's pics on a better monitor, and found another type of AF failure I've not seen before - a photo of the blenny with the eye perfectly in focus, but Playback on the camera showed it as a false detected eye well away from the fish (false eye detections are normally in focus). Go figure... I reckon the problems probably arise from a combination of a primitive AF motor in the 90 (compared to the latest AF lenses) which doesn't do tiny adjustments well; plus using AFC / tracking (which requires those tiny adjustments). As I already mentioned, I had similar AF failures (though not as many) using the two 50 macro lenses behind a 140 dome. But the gain in IQ is such that it's a hard call as to which way to go (flat or dome) with those lenses. And the 90 doesn't do domes at all as far as I can tell (the 90 was released a year before the Sony 50 macro). The mystery is more like why some other Sony users aren't reporting problems, but my guess is they might be using AFS with single point AF and focus / recompose techniques. I used that method for many years with various Nikons and a Nikkor 60mm micro, but it's a recipe for slightly out of focus pics in many cases. So if some of those other Sony 90 / MFO users could kindly let us know their detailed settings, that would be appreciated...!

Yes I should have removed it, but dive conditions were deteriorating rapidly and I ran out of time. It's been a while since I shot the 90 behind just a flat port, but I don't recall it behaving that bad. I know I used to use it successfully with my A6400. Lately I have been testing the 90 behind a dome, but without success - I think because the EP shrinks heaps towards as you focus in. Re the Sony 50 macro + MFO, I had intended to try that (and the Zeiss 50), but I suspect it won't work because the Sony extends 25mm as you focus in. But the Zeiss should work, since it doesn't extend. However, using these lenses with a dome makes such a huge difference in IQ, I can't see the MFO is necessary. Re settings, I tried it with subject recognition off, which seemed to improve things a little. In that case, all that's left to adjust is AF tracking sensitivity. I have previously explored those settings and concluded the default 3 is about right. I could turn tracking off (or use AFS) but that limits my ability to maintain sharp focus on even a stationary subject that is off centre. So I'm interested to hear what detailed settings people are successfully using with their 90 / MFO. One thing I haven't checked: I set the 90 on Full with the MFO. Is that correct - I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere? I may test it again (trying the above options and any others suggest), but at this stage, I'm so p...d off that I'll sell it. Anyone want a mint condition MFO? !

Thanks, but I didn't see that as an option in Firefox, which is where the Paste command should appear once you are ready to paste the text copied in Word. "Paste" was always greyed out in Firefox. But I didn't try a right click, so maybe that would help. I could also try safari which I don't use these days, but there are some differences in how the two browsers behave (I can't use Firefox with MyGov!!!)

Thought I better post some examples - but didn't dare try that with a long post in case everything disappeared! All are uncorrected and uncropped. OK: Completely out of focus pic of small goby: camera Playback shows the camera as having found an 'eye' (tiny green square) behind the actual eye, Normally when this happens, at least the detected eye is in focus. Pic of blenny nearly head on: Playback shows the focus point as between the eyes, which is approx where I would have placed it. Obviously didn't happen like that. Pic of blenny head side on: I took 6 pics of this blenny in this position, focusing on the eye each time. Playback on this frame confirms the eye and near tentacle are the target in this frame. This is the best focus of the 6 pics, but is still not quite right, although could work if I wanted to use it. But the other 5 are way out of focus and unusable. Missing focus on 6 of 6 with a clear stationary subject is not good enough, and wouldn't have happened with the 20-70 or either of the two 50mm macros.

Maybe because I'm a Mac user? I haven't tried Notes but will next time. In the meantime, I laboriously rewrote the comment. But I do prefer drafting and editing something long in Word. Same as I do when posting say an eBay ad, which copies fine.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't entirely share the positive comments about the MFO-1 - at least when paired with the Sony 90. But I'm a fish nerd and haven't used any water contact optics since I sold my WWL-1 years ago. I prefer macro lenses to close-up dioptres. I was intrigued by the MFO, because of its extended focus range cf dioptres, and improved IQ across the frame cf using just the flat port. Also someone mentioned taking it to Lembeh (where I hope to visit shortly) and shooting it with their 90 most of the time. Someone else said it was good for lower viz waters... So I bought one. First test this morning, using: Sony 90, A7RV, Nauticam, AFC, focus tracking, medium spot or expanded spot, subject recognition on and off, 90 AF on Full. Good points: It's as sharp as everyone claims... IF you can get the subject in focus! The area of central focus is increased cf the 90 behind just a flat port. This aligns with my experience shooting 50mm macro lenses behind a dome, which significantly enhances overall IQ, albeit introducing some AF problems. Bad points: The rig is incredibly negatively buoyant, so much so that mid water subjects are almost impossible. But I don't use floats or floaty arms, so others who do will rightly say 'well, duh!' but the truth is I've never felt the need for them, until now. Focus is very slow, slower than any other rig I use, even the much maligned Sony 50 macro. It slows even further as you move in towards 1:1, effectively ruling out small moving subjects. And it still hunts sometimes... AF failures: AF failed in 28 out of 42 shots, even though I took care to focus on the eyes of mainly stationary fish targets. AF was OK on stationary non-fish subjects such as sea stars, where the potential focus target is larger and flatter. I later compared the downloaded images with the originals still in the camera in Playback mode, because I have set up Playback to show the green frame that was allegedly the actual position focused on. I found in the fish images the green frame is often NOT on the part of the frame that IS in focus - i.e. the Playback indicator appears to 'lie'. I don't think this is a camera fault, but instead it reflects that you need to 'wait' after you THINK you have focused on the subject with the 90 / MFO, before you take the picture, to allow the very slow focus process to conclude! And yes, I have the priority set in AFC / AFS on AF. Conclusions: I can (reluctantly) sort the buoyancy issue, but the AF issues are a deal breaker. If I focus on the eye of a fish, I expect it to be razor sharp almost all the time for stationary subjects, and most of the time for moving targets. Nothing less will do. As a fish nerd, the 20-70 seems a better bet, even with the disadvantage of the bulky 180 dome, which makes shooting small subjects on the bottom more difficult. But it is doable at the 70 end, with MUCH better AF. Also the rig handles sweetly, without buoyancy aids. The Sony and Zeiss 50 macros are also better performers, although using them with a dome introduces some similar AF issues (but not as bad). Curious to see if anyone has had similar experiences with their MFO / 90 rig, and what they did to improve things. The MFO is marketed as improving the AF of the lenses that it's designed for, but I didn't see that - more like the reverse. Perhaps it works better with AFS - but I don't use that mode.

I wrote a substantial comment just now in Word, but now find I can't copy and paste it into my intended Waterpixels comment frame. Don't want to write it out again.. Any ideas? I tried converting it into txt, but still no go

OK I have done some test splits with the 16-25 in a fish bucket, after rechecking the EP which I have revised from 80 to 78mm, at 16mm and 50cm focused distance. I tested the 16-25 at 16 and f/11. Results: 35 adap + 35 ext (total 70): in water portion is slightly larger, which means a longer ext is needed. 25 adap + 50 ext (total 75 - as tested diving): in water portion still slightly larger but the difference is about half that in absolute terms cf the 70 ext variation. 35 adap + 50 ext (total 85): in water portion now slightly smaller (ext too long) BUT bad vignetting! Conclusion: using this method, 80 total ext is probably about right, but will likely still vignette. So back to 75mm, which I already dive tested, concluding that f/8 is not really good enough if you have an important part of the subject approaching the corners. Pretty spot on with my theoretical calculation. Not ideal if you are trying to balance the light eg. under a jetty. Plus I can get just as good results with the 140 dome, which is a lot easier to light close-up at the 25 end. Next dive tests will be MFO with 90 macro, then Sigma 17 with 140 (I had a bad GAS attack when I saw the Australian distributor for Sigma had cut the retail price in half for the 24 and 17). Phil has previously given the 17 a good wrap. Both lenses focus super close, are tiny compared to FF zooms, and get great land reviews, so let's see...

I haven't posted any results because I haven't finished testing the 16-25, and have also been busy optimising other lenses behind domes. Plus dive opportunities are rare where I am (endless winds). However, I found the 16-25 to perform quite well (better than expected) with the N120 140 dome and a total extension of 60mm (25 adapter + 35 ext). I use a simple system to rate sharpness across the frame. First I flip the question of "corner sharpness" to one of "how large is the central area of acceptable sharpness", using the centre of the frame as a reference point, as (assuming it's in focus) it's always sharp regardless of port type or alignment. I then look for where sharpness falls off, at 100%, using images that should have elements that are sharp (i.e. in focus) at the edges. Yes this is still subjective, but it's surprisingly easy to detect where sharpness declines, and you always have the centre as a reference in your own image. No need to rely on someone else's opinion or equipment as the reference. Finally I rate the results as 1 for a 12mm circle (of acceptable sharpness at 100%), 2 for 24mm and 3 for 36mm. 2 and 3 correspond to touching the long and short sides of the 36x24mm FF image respectively. Now a "1" is pretty much a no go. You can get away with some CFWA, but you will have large horrible corners (which might be hidden in blue water). "2" is my minimum requirement for stills. Others may have different opinions. "3" is probably as good as it gets for a rectilinear WA lens behind a properly chosen and aligned dome. So getting back to the 16-25 behind the 140 dome with total ext of 60mm, at 16mm I rated the corners at 2 for f8 and 2-3 for f11. The 25mm end was an easy 3. Useable (for me) as a compact travel solution. I next tried the 16-25 with the N120 180mm dome with a total of 75mm extension. I expected great things but in fact the results were slightly worse. Same score at the 16mm end but slightly less than 3 at the 25mm end. Or to be brutal, not good enough at f8 if I have to carry the bulky 180 dome! I am not sure whether I need to increase or decrease the extension for better results with the 180 dome, so will check when I can with a split to see how the underwater component aligns with the topside, before further testing. Phil is suggesting a bit less. Some other test results: I can confirm that the 20-70 works ridiculously well with the 180 (total ext = 75; Nauticam port chart says 70), but performance is not really good enough with the 140. I have not found an acceptable combo with the Laowa 10 (tried various exts with 140 and 8.5"). I think it needs a custom 8"(or larger) port, as per the Aquatica solution. I even compared the Sony 50 and Zeiss 50 macros behind flat ports, vs the 140 dome. Scores were "1" behind the flat ports, and "3" behind the dome... a huge jump in IQ (and "apparent" DOF), but with some AF focusing issues with the dome (tracking AF can jump off the target with still subjects). In terms of comparing Phil's results with Marelux ports, I don't have any figures for where the optical centres for Marelux ports lie. With Nauticam, the optical centre is 6-7mm behind the port flange for the 140, and 25mm behind for the 180. Of course these are starting points only, for your own tests.

The Help Guide for my A7CR states that flash synch speed is 1/160 for FF and 1/200 for APS-C, using a Sony flash. In practice I get 1/200 for FF with no probs, using Nauticam manual flash trigger and optical cables. Any faster, the black line appears at the top of the frame. Having cut my photo teeth on Nikonos 1/60 max flash synch (and using flash bulbs before that), this is sheer luxury...!

Interesting. It's manual only, but with power settings. At approx < AUD $60, could be an alternative to $300 Nauticam manual flash trigger? And should fit in my A7CR housing.

Sold through Waterpixel

I don't have a PZ lens now, but when I tried the 10-20 PZ with my new A7CR, the trick was to assign the zoom function to a custom key/dial set (setup menu). Before I bought the A7CR I tried unsuccessfully to check whether the A6700 firmware had this function, as I was considering the A6700. Might be worth further menu diving.

Can't you zoom the 10-20 PZ from the camera body? If you can then you can ditch the zoom gear and the cam plus lens fits through the N85 port opening. I know you can't with the A6400 but you can with latest FF bodies, such as A7CR, A7RV etc. It's clunky, but better than having the port shuffle. Also, 180 dome should give better IQ but it's quite bulky. See Nauticam port chart.

Thanks for the test. The bottom RH corner shots seem sharper than the others (3rd and 2nd last pics). Any chance there are some focus issues eg. small target / camera close to target and not square on?