Proteus

I'd guess the same as Chris, with the same caution about the gear. In my case I just bought the new 100-120 adapter and sold the old one on eBay. Gary

The older one is incompatible with (at least) the Sony housings. I ran into this when upgrading from my A7RIII to the A7RV. To my surprise, I couldn't mount the 37303. It turned out that Nauticam "bumped" the newer housing out a bit and this created an interference. They resolved this by making the 37305. Can't speak to any other models, but it is for sure an issue with the A7RV housing. Gary

I'd be interested in a rebreather section, as I often dive rebreather + solo. Of the two, however, solo is much more important. I tend to go crazy when I find a really good subject and only have 30 seconds to shoot. Take pictures ... race to rejoin the group .... take pictures ... race to rejoin the group. Repeat for 60 minutes ....

I too am not a fan of the size and weight of the larger housings, but can add my story to some of the others. A few years back a had a D850 in a Nauticam housing. As said above, I hated the size and weight (but was extraordinarily pleased with the photos / usability). To "fix" the issue, I moved to an A7RIII hoping to reduce size. It was smaller, but when I added strobes and a dome port life was much the same. Yes, it was smaller, but not in a really important way. So now I'm wishing for an integrated solution the size of a GoPro. It would include a 13mm rectilinear lens (water convertible to fisheye and macro), Retra strobes with combined 10K video lamps, and Sony A1 performance. Somehow I think I'm going to be disappointed .... 😥 Gary

Yes, they are sold. Sorry ...

Same here. The videos are done well, and the content is great! Gary

Does anybody have a similar method to create Type A cards? I have a Sony A7RV and, as best I know, they only take Type A. I bought one, but was surprised at the limited sizes and much higher cost. Gary

In your review you say, "so far the Tamron 17-28 held the prime spot" but I cannot find a Tamron review on your site. Am I missing it? I'd like to see the tests (or posts) that led to your opinion as I'd like to compare with your detailed 16-35 work. Gary

Thanks again to Interceptor121! I enjoy reading the articles, and the detailed testing (and photos) really helps one to see the differences in a controlled environment. Prior, I've struggled to separate lens performance from all the other variables that are changing in the "wild". Your. work is much appreciated. Gary

Price reduced to $450, including battery.

I'm glad we're having this discussion, because I could "swear" that I'm getting better images from the 20-70! And yes, I understand the AOV and corner compromises. There is no "science" behind my impression. Given that I've never done side by side, or equivalent settings comparisons I would be the first to defer to those that have done that kind of work. That said, I am really liking the 20-70 and am thinking that it may become my "go-to" lens, especially in uncertain visibilities. I had planned to use the 28-60 / WWL-1B for this, but now I'm wondering ... Gary

I'd like to offer my thanks, as well. I was (and am) a little blown away at how well the transition was implemented. Great work from the team! Gary

Forgot to add one more picture.

Selling my Sony 16-35 F4 lens. The lens is in excellent condition and I'm including the Nautical zoom and focus gears. I've decided to move into some other lenses, hence the sale. The lenses seem to be selling for about $450-$500 on eBay, so I'm asking $650 for the lens with the additional gears. As you'll see in the picture, I'm including the box, paperwork, and accessories that Sony supplies. null

Forgot to mention that I too have a Canon 8-15 that I use for wide angle, and mostly CFWA use in places like Cayman. I'm finding that I can segment my use into use cases where the 20-70 is "good enough" for most wide angle, and the 8-15 covers the other types of use. The big win, for me, is the flexibility to go from "wide angle" to fish portraits. I never know what visibility I'm going to get on the bottom - especially here in North Carolina. It's quite common to have 80 foot blue water visibility from the surface until 20 feet from the bottom, then 20 foot visibility to the bottom in green water .... or maybe .... blue water all the way down. The 20-70 can cover both use cases. Gary