hedonist222

A friend of mine with a Sony A7r3 and a Seafrog housing moved to the Easy Dive housing. He's an avid photographer like us - annual trips with no less than 500 photos. He's said there are so many shortcomings with the ED. Many unmapped buttons. Fewer accessories. And the biggest irk is having to exit out of a menu to review a photo. This entails several "back button pushes" to exit the menu system you are in, then enter another system that lets you review photos. Then exit this system and return to the shooting menu system. Then to add salt to the wound, it takes a few seconds when switching between menus. Everyone knows a few seconds underwater not only feels like an eternity, but costs you shots you could have taken. So much wasted time. There are a few other things that I cannot remember now. But I determined that this is more of a commercial camera than a personal one. Think Deep Dive Dubai or aquariums - where they can spend X amount on a housing then only need to pay a bit to upgrade software. A lot of cost savings but not something for an avid photographer. He is now vehemently looking to move to a Nauticam or Marelux. I'm just pointing out that non-mechanical housings have limits.

How did you get in contact with NusaTrip?

Nauticam SMC-1 for sale. $350 shipped via FedEx.

Hello. I have one. Are you still looking?

Same here. Won't be delivering before 15 November. Was hoping to use one on an upcoming trip.

Thanks for sharing this. Just f/16? Pairing this lens with a diopter means even more forgone DoF. I recall resolution being pretty good up to f/22 on my Canon EF 100 f/2 L.

Yep. Definitely not US dollars. Copied from a Facebook page in a far eastern language (could be Hong Kong or Taiwan dollars).

Although I remain confused at the first point above. Most macro lenses working distance (i.e. the minimum focusing distance to record a 1:1) is always less than 1 meter anyways.

The MFO-1's main function is to cancel the focus distance limitation. Maybe early days and hence the cryptic marketing blurb, but it looks like they've managed to reduce (doubt they can eliminate) the minimum focusing distance. Info from the internet: #81501 MFO-1 (yellow circle) The main features are: 1. The focusing distance can be within 1 meter, eliminating the focusing distance limit of macro lenses (SMC is within 10cm). 2. Improve the overall picture quality. 3. The distance, range and size of photographed objects have increased a lot of possibilities. It is expected to ship at the end of November, priced at $12,000 #nauticam #smc3 #mfo1

I was also going to suggest the Nauticam vacuum button cap. It should really have been tethered to the body. I know its not aesthetically pleasing and Nauticam does groove on function as well as aesthetics.

Those are some nice photographs, Simon.

Thanks humus. Likewise!

Good to have you on here, Edward.

Wow. Now that sounds very interesting. I regard the SMC-1 as very sharp. In fact, on some of my photographs, it's provided a sharper output than the lens itself (with using the diopter). I'm very excited and looking forward. Thanks for this snippet of info, Edward.

Thank you for this helpful input, Wolfgang. You are most correct in that, aside from degradation, there are other more commanding variables. Such as DoF as above. I actually did test the lens from f22 to f16 but I am opting not to rely on it (test results) because my subject was not stationary. It was fast moving a nudibranchi and therefore my area of focus shifted between shots. I will repeat this with a polyp or similar soon.

I recall quality from the Canon 100 f/2.8L began degrading at f/24. I have not yet tested the Sony 90mm yet. Has anyone established this yet?

Thanks @atus! and most definitely likewise!

I found a few photos of me actually raising the camera so it doesn't bang around the dive site. It gets cumbersome after a while. And another of typical day of foraging. 😄

Just yesterday I was doing a shore dive at a sandy bottom site with no coral. The only life there was shrubs, grass, and seaweed. To actually be able to find anything meant getting as close as possible to the finger-high sea grass. With my rig dangling with the length of my lanyards meant I had to hold the camera away from my torso and outwards to my side. This is a photo I found on the internet that depicts what I'm talking about: My system would be dragging through the sand even at the distance from the sea bed in the below photo. Being able to raise it even 10 cm means I can get closer. Incidentally, yesterday's site resembled this one.

I suppose what I reveal now will explain the need to be hands-free. As blasphemous as this will sound on an underwater photography forum, I sometimes do a handful of dives without even turning my camera on. Yep. If the perfect scene does not present itself, I will not even bother taking a picture. I'm okay with finding cool stuff but not getting a photograph. Other reasons I'll not bother taking a picture : Too much backscatter, something I've photographed before, I'm indifferent to nudis and will only take pictures of ones I find appealing (that's usually 1 out of every 10 different species), or difficulty from current or surge. So being able to stow my rig while I hunt for little critters is important. Also, most times I'll be wielding a magnifying glass and a reef stick and therefore need my hands free of a rig. Not throughout the dive though, only in certain areas where I'm hunting for something.

A refreshed SMC-1. Wow. I wonder what they could have improved.

Davide, is the above ddressed to me? I hope not becausen i did not argue or get personal. I did neither but appear to be lumped into a Neanderthal grouping for sake of ease. Is your post in your personal capacity? on in your Super Moderator capacity? Please specify as you carry a responsibility. If the former, then I can disregard, if the latter, then I'm offended and expect an apology. I note in advance that you were catty with me earlier. When you said "while I saved physical and mental energy" in response to me saying these particular words earlier. Were you suggesting that because of your inability to multi-task, that it's better to reduce competency to protect a disposable camera? Shouldn't you be saying that integrity of dive safety trumps everything? Are you being catty in your personal presence or super moderator presence? Nether are accepted but the former is in more poor character. Quoted below for utmost clarity.

Dave, your post appears to be posted haphazardly. Mods, the above could harm current and future divers. There are many flaws and poor opinions passed off as sound advice that will harm others. I kindly request you exercise good judgment by moderating this post. Dave, for your own wellbeing, I urge you to consult with a dive professional. Out of transparency, I have reported this post to the moderators because it contains emotional and detrimental advice that may me harmful to the public.

Hi John I wasn't able to visualize what you expressed. In spite of your tether, you still hold your unit with your hands while diving?

Yes. Camera on the left. The symmetrical twin lanyard attach to my person during the dive. The third lateral/horizontal is for the sole purpose of carrying the unit. Why do you carry the rig during the entire dive if it's attached to you? In my opinion, it's unnecessary duress and you're better off getting a sturdy lanyard system to relieve your from needing to hold your camera the entire dive. I only manhandle the rig when I'm taking a photo. Otherwise it's secured to my person via the industrial-grade lanyards. In my instance, longer than required. The only issue is that my lanyard attachments are too long for muck diving when in close proximity to the sea bed or during tight quarters. My issue is easily resolved with my solution above or a shorter lanyard pair. My true reason for starting this thread was to raise this for divers unaware of this scenario and for fruitful discussions.