Robin.snapshots

Yes, @Davide DB mentioned something like this: https://www.easydive.it/en/underwater-housing/dslr-mirrorless/leo3-wi-universal-underwater-housing.224.html Which can also hold different camera's, is considerably cheaper and has substantially more depth rating.

It sure looks like it

60mm to 70mm float arm adapter for Nauticam accessory: . I recently got a mount for a nauticam bayonet on a 70mm float arm. I didn't want to upgrade my float arms to the nauticam ones so I made a simple adapter to mount it on a generic 60mm float arm. Printed in TPU, printing with 5 perimeters worked well for me. Nauticam bayonet 70mm to 60mm float arm adapter.stl

Set consisting off: 2x Inon z330 2x Inon ballmount 1x Nauticam ballmount 2x optical cable Inon -> sea&sea connector 1x retra LSD optical snoot 1x funnel snoot and reducer 8x eneloop pro batteries 3x neoprene covers 1x spare battery cover and O rings Asking €1100,- Pickup or EU shipping from The Netherlands

Underwater housing set consisting of: -Seafrogs salted line gen 3 for a6xxx with standard port -Neoprene protective cover -Tray with handlebar and trigger WA: -6” domeport optical glass -6” frogports USA shallow domeport aluminium Macro: -Long macro port with 67mm thread (for Sony 90mm or 50mm) -Flat short port with 67mm thread Gears: -Samyang 8mm focus gear -Sony 16-50 zoom/focusgear -Sony 10-18 zoom gear Ports can be sold separately if desired Asking €700,- for the full set. Pickup / shipping to EU from the Netherlands

For sale: AOI UCL-03 Underwater Close-up Lens for Action Camera & Phone Condition: good as new, used a handful of times. Glass in good condition Asking price: €175,- Pickup from the Netherlands or shipping within EU at buyers expense/risk

The AOI mount also vignettes in 8:7 but considerably less than the Backscatter mount. cropped to 16:9 (or 9:16 for that matter) both mounting options work fine. So if filters are desired, I would definitely opt for the Backscatter mount.

A general rule of thumb underwater is to get as close as possible to the subject. Less water in-between means more contrast and overall better image quality. Getting closer will also mean more strobe light on the subject, but as you want to start with natural light, this is not a consideration yet. Fisheye lenses are quite common for underwater photography as they tend to give a wider field of view (getting you closer) and sharper corners in the smaller domes like the 6" seafrogs one. For reefscapes I would consider the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye lens first. This lens is not a native Sony lens so will need an adapter for a Canon or Nikon mount depending on the one you get. This is an excellent wide angle lens for underwater use and a versatile option because of the zoom range. For larger animals like sharks, getting close is not always an option. So a slightly tighter lens like the Samyang 12mm will get a bit more of them in the frame. There is also the Sony 11mm option mentioned before, I haven't tried that one but I guess that falls in the same category. Another lens to consider here is the Sigma 16mm f1.4 dg dn. This lens is not as wide as the other options but performs well underwater for natural light shooting and is an excellent lens for land photography. Being rectilinear lenses in a 6" dome, these options will all suffer from a lack of corner sharpness. This is not really a problem for things like sharks as the corners are usually blue in these situations. I personally preferred the Samyang for photographing people and things with straight lines like wrecks. Being rectilinear it doesn't have as much distortion a fisheye would have. Here's an example of a model shot in a pool with the samyang: null To illustrate what I mean for reefscapes. Here is a shallow reef shot with natural light on the Samyang: Notice the big drop in corner sharpness with this combination. A fisheye would handle this a lot better.

Hi Jallie, Feel free to send me a personal message. I am in The Netherlands and selling a full set of Salted line housing + ports and have some lenses available as well. As for lenses, what are you planning to photograph? I have used the Samyang 12mm AF and it works great in the 6" dome but I would not like that one to be my only wide angle lens.

Yes in 16:9 or 9:16 there is no noticeable vignetting with both mounting options on GoPro 12

When shooting RAW there is only wide mode (full sensor) available and as such I haven’t shot anything else than wide mode (photo and video) which was the recommended setting. Cropping will yield perfectly usable pictures but is an extra editing step and throws away resolution. This is fine for most users as they will probably use 16:9 or 9:16 which both work well. The lens is still a great product at a good price point and can be very small because of this limitation. The issue I have is with the lack of transparency and false advertising. The lens is sold with the claim of “Razor Sharp Focus From Corner To Corner" which is simply not true. The reason I started this thread is that I wanted to know wether there was a difference in mounting options. I had hoped the vignetting to go away with a better fitting mount.

The tokina 10-17 will work in your current Seafrogs dome if you have the 6” version. Another option I liked in that is the Samyang AF 12mm f2.0

Yes the vignetting is always there in 8:7 format. Backscatters response was to crop the image to 16:9 where it works just fine. I find it a bit misleading for a lens to be advertised as "sharp corner to corner" and then having to crop the corners off. In the meantime, I have tried a friends AOI mount which does sit closer to the port than the backscatter mount. The vignetting with the AOI is considerably less but still present.

After some searching online I found that photodiox has an E mount extension tube set that includes a 7mm. I expect the lens to work without vignetting on FF in the 55 port with that one. With a cmc-1/2 it will be underwater corrected and I expect cheaper in total than the other options.

I own the Sony 50, Canon 60 and Sony 90. If you find the 90mm an exercise in patience, I doubt you would prefer the 50 and 60 on blackwater dives. They perform much worse Autofocus wise. On my a7Riii, a focus light goes a long way to get better results with the 90mm. The 50 and 60 I like using on lower visibility dives. Both of them produce sharp results and I personally find the Sony 50mm much more enjoyable to work with. The tracking AF works much more reliable and in a bigger area of the frame on the Sony. On land I did notice both lenses AF come alive a bit more on my A7iv (still hunting but less) but I haven't tested them with that camera underwater. For both of them (canon 60 + adapter and Sony 50) you need the 32mm port + 40mm extension or 45mm+30mm both combinations work well. If nauticam would start selling a 20mm n100 extension I guess that should work similar with your 55 port. An option for your 55 port would be the Zeiss 55mm f1.8. This lens is great on land and can be obtained for a reasonable price used. This lens sits against the front of the 45 port on its own, it's a very tight fit and I would be worrried about it long term but it works. Nauticam recommends this lens in the 55 port in combination with the cmc-1/2 but warns about vignetting on full frame. The vignetting might not be an issue in black water dives at all but can be fixed by adding a macro extension tube inbetween the lens and the camera. To make the lens with tube fit, a 9mm tube would be perfect if such a thing exists. Otherwise shaving off half a mm on a 10mm tube would give it enough clearance.

Your sunhood could use a little adjustment 😀 This is indeed a very capable setup like this. Have you thought about adding a macro wetlens to the setup? There is the AOI ucl-03 that fits on the bayonet system but I don't have personal experience with it.

Where the camera flange sits inside the housing was changed going from the a7 to the a7ii (and newer). I would suggest looking at both port charts and taking into account the difference on top of Isaac’s measurements.

On my X3 there was a significant improvement for me when switched to the newer version of the dive case. By no means invisible but cleaner shots nonetheless.

Here is an example illustrating the difference with tracking AF in a handheld scenario on my a7 iv. As said in the previous post, the AF seems to work much nicer outside of the center with the Sony. Here the vignetting of the canon can also be seen initially but disappearing at closer focus.

Thanks for letting me know, Its been a while since I had an aps-c lens on I completely forgot this was a thing. The 1200px crops are still fine (there the magnification is also similar) but I would need to check the canon again for vignetting in that case. I did a quick AF test yesterday and I have to say that the Sony performs much much better when the subject is not centred in the frame. The sony can have focus points in the corners of the frame where the canon really struggles. During that test I also noticed that the lack of contrast of the Zeiss was partly caused by some internal reflections on the extension tubes. After flocking one I got much cleaner results but also some vignetting because the material I had is a bit thick. I ordered different extension tubes with a wider opening and will repeat the test with those.

I have seen some people sharing some experiences on this forum regarding a shorter focal length macro option to use in addition to the excellent 90mm on Sony full frame. I was missing a bit of an overview and direct comparison of the available options so here is a thread to start that. I received the canon lens today so I now own 3 candidate options which I can test in the next couple of weeks. Waiting for the water to warm up locally so dry testing for now and real world testing later. These candidates are left to right : Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8 + 26mm extension tube Not a macro lens but an excellent lens topside which many sony shooters probably own already. Gets somewhat into macro range by adding the extension tubes so might be a cheap addition for many Sony FE 50mm f2.8 Macro fully extended Excellent lens optically but infamous for being very slow and loud to Autofocus. Does come with a focus limiting switch and is very compact Canon EFS 60 mm f2.8 Macro + metabones adapter Canon option initially built for APS-C but is reported to also work well on full frame at higher magnifications and stopped down First takeaways are that all 3 options are similarly sized and fit in my nauticam housing using : N100 flat port 32 + 40mm extension N100 flat port 45 + 30mm extension The Zeiss and the canon initially seems to focus noticeably faster than the Sony with the Canon being more prone to hunting. I will try to conduct a more objective test for this. To compare the lenses FOV on land I made a test setup shown bellow taking a picture at f13 with my 42MP a7Riii on the minimum focus distance for all the lenses. First pictures are uncropped but resized for web in Lightroom as only edit. Zeiss: Sony: Canon: And a 1200x1200 crop in the same order: The Zeiss unsurprisingly loses out on magnification, contrast and sharpness being not a macro lens. It is an accessible option though so I am curious to how it performs underwater in the real world and wether it will produce usable images after some processing. The canon seems well suited in this quick MF test.

I was using a Samyang 8mm f2.8 fisheye ii on my a6400 salted line for which I purchased the 4" dome and focus gear specifically. I suspect indeed the minimum focus distance was the issue here which was quite disappointing at the time. Some lenses on the charts also seem to be geared towards surf photography instead of uw i.e. long telephoto lenses

It seems all fisheye options are removed. I remember the 8-15 being 30mm extension + 140mm dome on N120 but please correct me if I am wrong. I wouldn't trust the seafrogs port charts for any useful information to be honest. Unless they recently moved to better testing their criterium for the lens chart is more or less "fits inside". I bought a lens/port combination that was on their port charts a couple years back that turned out completely useless as it wouldn't focus.

Just tried disabling the stabilisation. It does exactly as expected. The black corners are still there only now with the image circle nicely centered.

I measured mine and It is exactly 26mm, as Barmaglot pointed out. What I am now curious about, is why the Nauticam N100-N120 adapter is 35,5mm and is somehow supposed to use the same ports.