Isaac Szabo

I would also recommend trying a red focus light. The fish in my local river are less spooked by red compared to white. I'm a little confused by your other issue. If you're using strobes, then I'd expect you to have enough light to shoot at f/8 at fairly low ISO. Also, lowering shutter speed will have no effect in the dark (unless you're using continuous light instead of strobes).

@Dave_Hicks Nice work! Awesome to hear that you were able to figure out settings that are working for your printer!

Just through tons of experimentation with print settings in the slicer. I get solid/watertight parts straight off the printer. A couple of the key factors are extruding around 1.1-1.2x more filament than normal and adjusting seam and wall settings so there are no gaps. I'll caution that, while it can be figured out. it's not easy. And settings that work for one printer model do not simply transfer over to another printer model.

@flowdesign Oh sorry, the material is PETG. I've been using 3D printed ports myself for 5-6 years and making them for other people for a few years. For others wanting to experiment with this type of thing, I should note that FDM 3D prints are not typically watertight. Special settings are required in order to achieve this, and one should do proper vacuum and hydrostatic testing before using them in the real world. @Grantmac Unfortunately, I don't have the N85 design, but I could potentially add it in the future if there's enough demand.

I suppose I should chime in here. I've had several requests for 3D printed extensions, so I recently went ahead and designed/tested an N100 version. I made the prototype 17.4mm, as I believe that is the reported length difference between the Sony 90mm and 100mm lenses (if anyone knows for sure the ideal length for the extension for the 100mm, please let me know). It's simple to do other lengths as well (it might be tough to do shorter than 15-16mm with the current design, though). It has a bayonet but not a port lock, though that shouldn't be an issue if you use a vacuum system. I tested it to over 100m. Obviously, a 3D printed plastic extension is not nearly as nice as an aluminum one from Nauticam, but I just thought I'd let people know about this option - especially for people wanting a non-standard length or to save a little money. I'm hesitant to mention price because I don't want to flaunt the forum's rules on self promotion/advertising, but I also know that's one of the first things anyone who's interested is going to want to know. So I'll just say that I'm thinking in the neighborhood of $100 plus shipping, but if the moderators want to remove that (or any of this), please feel free.

@Hilmar While testing various configurations of my EMWL setup, I discovered that increasing the distance between the focus unit and objective increased the field of view but also started to cause vignetting at some point. My hypothesis is that the different focus units might be identical other than the length at the front, with unit 1 being longest to account for the narrower FOV of the 105mm lenses and unit 3 being shortest to account for the wider FOV of 90mm lenses (and unit 2 in between for 100mm lenses). I believe your 45mm lens will work with all of the focus units. I think unit 1 would provide the widest FOV, though I cannot say for sure whether or not there would be a small amount of vignetting without trying that exact combination.

It should be 84. Edit: Or maybe 85? The design I use has 84, but the one linked to below has 85. I can't remember what I based my design on, but it might have been from someone else's design who had potentially miscounted. Either way will likely work.

You could probably use an o-ring or gasket to seal bubble-free water between your WWL-1B and port glass. I know people who used an o-ring in this way with the WWL-1 so they could do split shots. Obviously that would only address the bubble issue, not the streamlining issue.

Both upside down and mirrored. Or in other words, the image is rotated 180 degrees.

Another option is the Nikonos RS 13mm fisheye converted to Sony. It's smaller, lighter, and sharper than anything else, though without the versatility of a zoom (it's fixed at 170 deg). And finding an RS 13 copy to get converted can be a little challenging. This discussion got me curious about the weight of the RS 13 setup. Looks like the port plus inner lens comes in at around 1070g.

Anyone happen have a spare Marelux port extension they want to sell?

Some of the text is smaller and more difficult to read for me too. Where I find it most problematic is when I click the "All Activity" button to see a chronological list of all the recent posts. I believe the post titles are smaller, and it is more difficult to tell the difference between the read and unread posts since the difference in their size/boldness is more subtle. Plus the usernames and forum sections are also bold (unnecessarily, in my opinion), contributing to too many things competing for the attention of the eyes, when the only thing I'm usually interested in is the unread posts.

The techniques we use to make 3D printed parts are different, so I don't think your experience applies to my parts. I have used 3D printed ports myself for 5 years without failure. More recently I have been doing some pressure testing of 3D printed ports (since I now make them for other people). The deepest I have tested one is 137m/450ft, which was the limit of the pressure gauge I was using. I now have another gauge and will test deeper when I have some free time.

Yikes, that's pricey for basically a tube. I could do it, but currently I'm too busy to take on new projects. Maybe at some point in the future I'll consider offering them for the port mounts I already have the designs for. Developing good waterproof settings for a 3D printer can take a lot of work, but once you achieve that, designing/printing an extension tube is not too difficult.

Thanks Phil. I really appreciate that, though I'm up in Arkansas and am not sure when I'll next make it down to Florida.

Using two rulers like that is not a very accurate method. It's probably fine if you want an estimate within 5mm or so but not if you need high accuracy. The ruler laying flat across the housing is certainly not rigid and unlikely to be flat. Turning the ruler on its side would at least make it fairly rigid. Also, viewing the ruler from an angle that is not perfectly perpendicular will result in a reading error. Another source of error is if the vertical ruler is not perfectly perpendicular to the camera mount (this can't be seen in these photos). And like you said, cheap rulers are not guaranteed to give very accurate readings, especially from the end which is often not perfectly aligned with the zero mark. A more accurate method is to place a precision depth gauge on a flat, rigid, metal object spanning the housing opening (and then subtract the thickness of the metal object). I don't say these things to disparage Phil. I really appreciate his effort, and his result would probably suffice for help with choosing a proper extension. But for what I do with the Nikonos 13mm (I'm currently making a Marelux version) a 4mm error means vignetting in one direction or the inner lens crashing into the dome in the other direction. It's also possible that Phil's housings have different dimensions than the housings of my client and the Marelux engineer, though that would be pretty concerning. And I should note that my client's housing is the same as one of Phil's (Sony A1), and he used the method I described above. Anyway, thanks again to Phil and everyone else here for taking the time to share this helpful information.

I have gotten confirmation from a Marelux engineer that the distance for Sony is 39mm (the 4mm disparity is very significant for what I do).

1) I'd tend to recommend going without the relay (unless the used price is quite good). In my experience, the relay has some downsides, including reducing the image quality a little and making the system awkwardly long (though with some skittish subjects the extra length could sometimes be helpful). Going without the relay and flipping the image on your LCD is a viable option. Moving the focus point, reading the settings, and navigating the menu will all be inverted in that configuration, but in my experience that's not too difficult to adjust to. On the other hand, I don't think trying to compose without fixing the inverted image is viable. If you can't fix the inverted image, I find it's better to not even look at the image and just watch the front of the lens in relation to your subject instead. 2) It depends on what kinds of photos you're wanting, but most people much prefer the 160 over the 100. If you're wanting the EMWL for extreme wide angle perspectives of small animals, I'd think you'd want the 160. The 100 is just not that wide. But again, if you can get the 100 at a considerable discount, it could maybe make sense to use it for a while and save up for the 160 later on. Or if you're not a big fan of fisheyes and prefer more moderate wide angles, the 100 might be a good fit.

Thank you!

With a small "dome" of less than 4in/100mm, the RS 13mm is never going to be as good for splits as a large dome. A large dome makes the water line smaller and easier to keep positioned where you want it - especially in wavy conditions. A large dome also decreases the focus difference between underwater and topside portions (so the topside is less blurry). That said, splits are possible with the RS 13mm, and a small dome actually has a couple of advantages in that you can do splits of smaller subjects and in shallower water. Here are a few examples. Note that I didn't stop down the aperture very much for these (f/5.6-f/.8). Obviously, shooting at something like f/16 would give a less blurry topside if that's what you're going for.

You might be able to use the Canon version of the 10-17mm on a Canon EF to Nikon Z adapter, though I have no idea how well those adapters work.

Can I ask where you found 43mm for Marelux? And what camera system that is for? I'm trying to confirm the distance for Marelux Sony full frame mirrorless. One person measured their housing for me and came up with 39.1mm. It would be great if anyone here can confirm that.

I've been using a monitor for all my shooting for around 4 years, and I really like it. I love being able to see the image no matter what weird position/angle I have my housing. A common example for me is being able to get really low perspectives without having to press my face down next to the substrate. However, a monitor won't be for everyone as there are some significant downsides: increased size/weight of the system - I made my own monitor housing and kept it fairly small, but many commercial models are surprisingly big/heavy increased complexity of the system - more things to setup/maintain and more things that can potentially go wrong reduced visibility in bright sunlight - my monitor isn't super bright, so visibility can be affected by bright/direct sunlight. I think many newer monitors are brighter and may not suffer from this as much. increased cost of the system - most underwater monitor housings aren't cheap With the EMWL some of the size/weight/cost downsides of a monitor are offset by not having to use the middle relay lens, so I think a monitor is a particularly good option for EMWL users.

OK good. Yeah the 100 objective isn't super wide to begin with, so it makes complete sense that you wouldn't want to lose any FOV.

Hopefully you find someone to swap with you. In the meantime, I'll mention that I believe your focus unit will work with your D850, it just will be slightly less wide than if you were to use focus unit 1. So if you want you could likely get some use out of it while you wait for a potential swap.