dentrock

I got keen and contacted Ern Quigley, who replied promptly and most helpfully. The short answer is (for my workflow using Mac): 1. Open Sony arw raw file in ACR. 2. Process globally as needed, inc noise reduction. 3. With ACR still open, click "Open" in bottom RH corner. This opens the file in PS. 4. Having installed BSXT as per instructions, run it. 5. Cleanup / adjustment if required. 5. Close file which will prompt a save - as PSD or TIF. These are very large; or 6. Do local adjustments, either in PS or you can go back to ACR from PS (Shift + Option + Command + E, then choose top layer and go to Filter > Camera Raw Filter). 7. You can then export (save) whatever format you want from ACR. 8. When you close the ACR file it will still prompt a save as PSD or TIF. If you don't save, you can always run BSXT again quite quickly if you need to. The Ern Quigley tutorial is excellent and clear. I bought it and it works well. Price? Fine for this sort of benefit.

I might have missed something (and I did watch the video linked at the start of this thread) but what types of files does it work with? I can't access the Ern Quigley tutorial without buying BXS... With all the recent advances in ACR, I can do all my post, including masking and noise reduction, on raw files in ACR (admittedly with PS running in the background), but I don't need to create PS layers and very rarely actually use PS. So can you use BXS on raw files? If not, then the suggestion to use BXS early in your post processing wouldn't work for me. I would have to use it at the end of my ACR workflow, converting a processed raw from ACR into something to open in PS in order to then use BSX. Would this sequence work OK?

Find a bricks and mortar camera store and try focusing inside in lowish light. I use AFC with tracking and medium spot. Don't know what Canon has to offer, but a modern lens and body should be fine. Check the lens reviews! With a dome, it's a good focal length for sharks up to about 2m in clear water, or close-ups of larger sharks. If the sharks are blending into the background you may have to focus on an edge before recomposing.

That's a lens I'd love to have for my Sony as a general / all purpose lens. Normal focal length macros work fine behind the 140 dome (eg Sony 50 and Zeiss 50). Have also used Nikkor 60 in the distant past with a small dome. Assuming you are talking Nauticam, the optical centre is about 6-7mm behind the 140 dome port face. You can estimate the EP for the lens (distance from lens mount flange to apparent location of diaphragm when viewed from the front), and having measured the distance from the lens flange to the housing port flange you can see what if any extension you will need. I don't know the Canon details, and I don't know if you need to use an adapter with your dome. With Sony FF, a 25mm adapter and no other extension works well, given a lens flange to port flange distance of 26-27mm. EPs for the above lenses are approx 43 and 48mm respectively. Misalignment with this combo is -3 (too long) for the Sony and +2 (not long enough) for the Zeiss. But bear in mind EPs can move as you focus close. Yours will be shorter I think. Macros / normal FOV lenses are pretty forgiving of inexact alignment. You can also use a 35 with a flat port, but the central area of sharpness will be disappointingly small.

I have the lens and I received the zoom gear for the 24-50 today. Item 37178. It fits the 16-25 nicely, subject to the usual Nauticam gear fitting issue of shuffling the little bits of rubber until you get a firm grip on the lens without trashing it. Incidentally I checked the Marelux port chart for 5" Sony and neither the Sony 16-25 nor the Laowa 10 are listed. That leaves only Ikelite and Aquatica supporting the Laowa 10, and possibly only Ikelite (which has, or used to have the most flexible lens gear system), potentially supporting the Sony 16-25. Others using other systems can advise if they like. I will dive test the 16-25 when weather permits, trying it first with the 140 (for travel), then the 180 domes. I estimated the EP for the 16-25 at 80mm from the lens mounting flange (at 16); 3mm longer than the 20-70 at 20. I will therefore start with extensions working for the 20-70, noting that the minimum focus distance is shorter for the 16-25.

Phil, have you tried the 16-25 in the 140 dome? Thoughts? Always interested in the most travel-friendly options. I'm finding the Laowa 10 very ordinary in the corners with the 140 (but good with the 8.5"). By the time you crop out the crappy bits in a 10/140 image, even at f16, you are back to 16mm equiv FOV or so.

I asked Nauticam if their zoom gear for the 24-50 would fit the 16-25, but they didn't reply. After studying the dimensions and design of both lenses, I am 90% sure it will, and may spring for the 16-25 during the black friday shenanigans.

I have been told that Nauticam has no plans to support either of these lenses, although they did suggest some port options for the Sony 16-25 including the 180 dome with 60mm extension. But we need a zoom gear for the Sony 16-25. It looks like the Nauticam zoom gear for the Sony 24-50 f2.8 G lens should fit, as these two lenses have very similar configuration and dimensions and apparently were developed as a complementary pair. Is anyone out there using the 16-25 with a Nauticam housing, and if so, what are you using as a zoom gear?

Adapter now AUD $299 (that's approx USD 200)

Hmmm... further price drop! Housing bundle exc battery packs but WITH vac valve etc now AUD $1599 (that's about USD 1100) Also N85 to N120 50mm adapter only AUD $299 (= USD 200)

Agree. Buy a used Zeiss 50 Touit. Ensure the firmware is V. 2 (has to be done by Zeiss - FOC). Better lens than Sony 50 macro in every way - except it doesn't do FF!

The N85 ID varies. The smallest I found was the 36125 dome, which was 69.5mm. I bored it out by 0.5 to accept the Samyang 12mm. Other bits are up to 73mm and perhaps even a little more. It's try it and see, or ask someone who has what you are curious about to measure for you.

A few 'drawing board' tests with the 140 N dome, which only required a dive tub of water... 1. Reduce total extension by 20mm (to 55mm comprising 25 adap + 30 ext). This aligns the EP within a few mm of the dome's optical centre, which should clean up the corners... Result: cannot zoom out the last 10mm or so! (Total zoom extension is about 40mm). Not surprising with a port with only 70mm radius, cf the 180 dome which apparently is 110mm radius. So no good. 2. Tried a total extension of 65mm (half way between Phil's 75mm and the above). In this case, misalignment of EP and optical centre is about 10mm. Result: was able to zoom out (just). But minimum focus distances (from the dome) have increased over what I got with 75mm extension, to about 120mm W and 150mm T. More to the point, I made up a 24x36mm focus target and the best I could get at 70mm was 1:4 magnification (cf lens' native mag of 1:2.6). I didn't bother to check the corners at 20mm, although they should be improved over what I got with 75mm extension. If 1:4 is enough for you, this may be a good option. So the range of useable extensions for the 20-70 lens and the N 140 dome seems to be between 65 and 75mm. Regardless, the Nauticam chart recommendation with 180 dome gives much better performance. Sadly, I have read that the widest lens you can use with the 180 is 14mm.

Check that "Setting effect" is OFF (Shooting>Shooting display>Live view display setting)

Thanks Phil. Yes, well aware you are using Marelux. I also (desparately) wanted to travel with only one dome... mostly because I will also be using the Laowa 10. I don't have your Marelux 140 dome specs, but otherwise the same ext you used (i.e. 75mm total) for Nauticam 140 seems about right in terms of trade-off between corners and MFD. Shorter ext will give better corners but longer tele end MFD and less magnification. I need good photos of gobies down to about 30-40mm length. I agree your pipe fish and shrimp pics look good. As I already mentioned, larger subjects like those (say 60mm and over) are great for the 140 / 20-70 combo, at the tele end. But I wouldn't recommend the 140 / 20-70 combo for other than occasional WA.

I test dived the 20-70 with A7RV, Nauticam housing, 140 dome and a total of 75mm extension (25 adap + 50 ext) as per Phil's rig. I really, really wanted to say it worked out well... but it didn't. Pros: 1. At approx 5440g exc arms and flashes, rig is approx 450 g lighter on land (cf 180 dome rig in my post above). Doesn't sound much, but I noticed it on my shore dive. 2. Smaller dome makes it easier to line up a small subject before you take the pic. Cons: 1. Noticeably more negative underwater. Some will want to add floatation, whereas I don't think the 180 rig needs that. 2. Max mag down. MFD at 20 still approx 50mm from dome, increasing to approx 100mm at 70. I estimate the mag at 70 MFD has dropped from 1:2.6 achieved with 180 rig, to around 1:3 - 1:4 with 140 rig. 3. Corner sharpness noticeably worse than with 180 rig; or more precisely, the central circle of acceptable sharpness viewed at 100% does not approach the centre of the long sides of the 3:2 frame (my benchmark). Even at f8, the 180 rig noticeably outperforms the 140 rig at f16. This is no doubt because the optical centre of the 140 dome is approx 19mm in front of the lens EP (just a few mm difference with the 180 rig). 4. FOV likely also affected by misalignment, but I won't try to measure this. I could use a shorter extension to improve corner sharpness, but that would drastically affect close focus ability. Verdict: hmmm. OK at 70 if your subjects are not too small (say, 60mm up). OK for shooting larger subjects you come across. Not OK if you are shooting mainly WA. If you want to use the 20-70 a lot, the 180 rig is a better option.

All lenses and also battery packs for A6400 housing now sold. Price drop on housing bundle to $1800 without vac valve or $2000 as listed exc battery packs. That's AUD....

Phil Rudin has posted plenty of WA photos for this lens. Here is a close-up of a 40mm male Nesogobius pulchellus, moderate cropping and minor processing (I tried and failed to upload uncropped version), at 70mm. Not too shabby for a do-everything zoom, so might satisfy fish nerds and perhaps blackwater dudes:

Finally got to test mine this morning with A7RV and Nauticam, and following the N port chart recommendation (35 adap + 35 ext + N120 180 dome). In addition to Phil Rudin's positive reports: Positives: 1. At 20, focuses to within approx 50 mm from dome. 2. At 70, approx 65-75 from dome. Specs say 1:2.6 max mag; MFD 30cm at 20 to 25cm at 70, so N recommendation is sound. 3. Heavy rig on land but quite well balanced UW. 4. Successfully shot 40mm gobies as well as a bit of boring WA in the conditions. 5. Very sharp for close-ups and fast focus. As sharp as my macro lenses on gobies. 6. Corners pretty good (no complaints from me, but obsessives can obsess). Besides, for WA I rarely shoot with smaller ap than f8. 7. Zoom is operated by the housing knob and gear. No need for adapter with knob. 8. Terrific lens for general use on land. Negatives: 1. As above, rig is very heavy on land at 5913 g, excluding strobes and arms. Actually, shocked me coming from APS-C A6400 rig. Not ideal for shore dives, depending on difficulty of entry. Options to reduce weight include: a) shoot with A7CR (1.1 kg lighter, comprising 200 less for body and 900 less for housing) b) try with 140 dome (save another 500g). Will do so weather permitting. 2. 35mm adapter used as recommended, but adapter knob gets in the way of housing knob. Because of the profile of the housing face (not flat), cannot mount upside down to get the knob out of the way. What was Nauticam thinking?????? If I was buying the bits to use this lens again, I'd use the hideously expensive 25mm adapter (no knob) + 50mm N100 ext. Or if I owned the N100 version of the 180 dome, no need for adapters. Just use extensions... 3. For close-ups of small, slow moving or static subjects, I like to sight the camera in externally first, then move to the EVF, focus, recompose and shoot. This is fine with a comparatively narrow macro port, but impossible with the big 180 dome. Using 140 dome may help.

Phil, in earlier posts this distance (lens flange to port flange for your Marelux) has been quoted as 43mm. If it is in fact approx. 30mm, that is good news and makes perfect sense. It also means that whatever best extensions you come up with for your Sony FF Marelux rig, we can apply to Sony FF Nauticam rigs, as the measured lens flange to port flange distance for the latter(26-28 depending on who measured and which model) is close enough to the Marelux figure. No need to add that 15-17mm extra for Sony / Nauticam, as quoted earlier in this thread. Perhaps the 43mm is for sensor to housing flange? The only remaining variable is where the optical centre lies for the Marelux 140 dome. I'm making the (bold) assumption that this is also close enough to the Nauticam 140 figure (6-7mm behind the dome port flange) as to not make any further difference, for the purposes of calculating necessary extensions. I am keen to see how you go with reducing your extension from 35 to 30. Perhaps we can get to a compromise where corners are sharp enough with a shorter-than-theoretically-ideal extension - and we don't need to remove the 140 port shade! Apologies for all this measurebating, but I can't dive my Laowa 10 until next week at the earliest. Still, we have a great starting point!

Kenko sold (ebay). Will (politely) consider all offers on adapter!

All lenses except Sony 30mm macro now sold (Gumtree and ebay). I can see I will have to drop the price on the housing bundle, so all offers will be considered (and no offence will be taken on lowball offers)! Will also consider all offers on my N85 to N120 50mm adapter (in other ad). Thanks

I think 121 said the 'built-in' ext was 25mm, with the optical centre still being a further 25mm behind the flange.

This is very helpful Phil! Many thanks. I had assumed the 20-70 would not focus close enough to be worth the trouble with the smaller 140 dome, so good news it can be used with the 20-70 and 10. I have the 25mm adapter and will try it with the 10. Thanks again.

Notes on vignetting (on land), applying my above figures: 1. With 35mm adapter and no other extension plus 140 dome, vignetting is slight - say, 2-3mm of shade visible top and bottom. This could be easily cropped in post - or I could remove the shade. At this stage, I prefer to keep the shade and try this combo in water, in about 3 weeks or so. 2. With 180 dome plus 35 adapter plus 20mm extension, vignetting is substantial - shade plus internal port. The shade is fixed, and I doubt removing the 20mm ext would fix things (and that much mis-alignment would seriously compromise the corners). I won't be testing this in water any time soon. 3. With 20mm extension plus 35 adapter and using the 8.5 inch acrylic dome, vignetting is moderate (in between the above two options). The shade can be removed but this won't quite remove the slight corner cutoff. which I would put up with. Regarding this dome's calibration, I think 121 said the optical centre was 26mm behind the flange, so much the same as for the 180 - I can't confirm this figure. Someone else to advise and confirm???? Regrettably, if I want to use both the 20-70 and the 10 behind one dome on a trip, the 8.5" with shade removed is the only solution, unless I buy yet another larger dome, which really, really, isn't going to happen.