Chris Ross

Nice shot, caught a good pose. I would suggest pulling in the white point followed by a light S curve to boost contrast a little.

Buried in the datasheet is the maximum discharge current of 2A, which seems a little low, a test of regular eneloops I found was measuring 5, 6, 7 up to 10A. This high discharge current is needed for fast recycle times on UW strobes. The recycle time for strobes is set by the internal resistance of the cells, so these would recycle slower than eneloops. The labelled capacity seems high but likely a work of fiction.

Very fine treads like that are a problem they can be difficult to start even when not damaged. Yes the aluminium is soft but if you are also screwing a soft aluminium adapter in to try and fix not much happens and there is a risk of cross threading and doing more damage. The correct way to try to fix this is using a thread file with the correct pitch of 0.75mm. You carefully place the teeth in an undamaged section and carefully move it around the circumference. It is meant to lift and straighten the teeth of the thread. It may be difficult to do with the glass in place though. The down side of fixing is you scrape off any anodising and it might be more prone to corrosion and seizing than a new thread. How much does the vendor want for it? with a damaged thread it should be close to free?😅

This sentence shows where AI got it wrong, it saying that as they share the same bayonet the housing flange distance must be the same, this is completely incorrect as that flange distance is totally different from the how the port is locked in place. You can see this with Nauticam when they first bought out RF and Z housings for Canon/Nikon, They both use N120 ports but the RF and Z housings have the flange distance longer by the thickness of the EF-RF and F-Z adapters specifically to allow the same zoom gear and extensions to be used when using adapted lenses when you upgrade housings. Doing a little research it lifted this comment from a comment on a post on Waterpixels. It didn't realise there is more to the problem than just being able to mount the domes/extensions. There seems to be some scatter in the port charts with S&S either 10 or 20mm less than what Isotta suggests with Z mount lenses. So I agree best to check with Isotta. In general I see a lot of the google AI summaries when searching for references related to topics raised here, for technical issues I see lots of problems, often conflating two or more topics to came to a false conclusion. AI can be great for example to develop a summary from a meeting transcript or similar tasks organising words, but the results need to be checked very carefully on technical topics. They are large language models which predict which words follow the previous and responses are highly tuned to the exact syntax used when asking a question. I glance at the results in the AI section and go into the actual results to find my answers.

In general you can compare extensions on the port charts to work out any difference in required extension between different housing manufacturers. For example the 14-30 in S&S uses a 40mm extension while Isotta uses a 60mm extension. So a S&S uses 20mm less extension than an Isotta based upon this. It should follow over to the macro ports so the h63 port on the port chart for ISotta you should need a h43 which Isotta also make. - BUT please contact Isotta to confirm this. Once you know you need x mm more or less extension with S&S housing compared to the port chart you are set for any combination. You would need to source a zoom gear though and may need to get that 3D printed, but given the cost savings of not getting a new system, it seems like it's worth it. You could ask on here if anyone has 3D printed a gear? You may also be able to adapt a zoom gear you already have if one of your lenses is close to the dia of the 24-50.

yes that will work, the port chart may or may not apply for port length, I don''t recall exactly though I think I remember hearing they do. You could ask Isotta? They are fairly responsive.

The problem with a single lens holder and two lenses is you need to put the lens you take off somewhere as your other hand is holding the rig, The problem with the wet WA lens sitting on the hotshoe is you will be doing this when you are trying to shoot macro and aiming the rig will be more difficult when you are in close to your subject. You could consider the 3D printed wrap around strobe floats for your strobes - they look like HF-1s, there is a design someone has come up with on this site for this.

This is something you can buy - I believe this is the sort of thing that will work: Bluewater PhotoSaga 67mm Flip Lens Adaptor for Subal Standard PortSaga 67mm Flip Lens Adaptor for Subal Standard Port - this great holder turns any port with a 67mm thread into a flip adapter for your macro lens. Looks like it is a push fit with o-ring inside. Probably need to double check if it fits her particular port.

You could also consider Isotta for a Z8, they take all of of your S&S ports directly so no need to buy new ports and they also have a port chart for using Nauticam wet lenses like the WWL-C with their system. I expect you would just be up for new zoom gears. Here is the port chart for Nauticam lenses: Nauticam Wet lens chart - Isotta

Welcome on board, good to see another OM-1 user on here. I'm also using Nauticam, but you could also consider Isotta and Marelux has recently released a housing, though details are thin on the ground, seems like it has a smaller port system and only lists a 140mm dome. I'm shooting with either the 60mm macro plus MFO3 (a great accessory as the 60mm macro is a bit long) and for wide angle the Canon 8-15 adapted with metabones and the Nauticam 140mm dome. If you were interested in this option the Isotta setup will be significantly cheaper. Previously I used the the Olympus 12-40 and still do occasionally when temperate water diving around home and also had the Panasonic fisheye with the tiny Zen 100mm dome. The big advantage of the Aluminium housing is they have an optical viewfinder and importantly for macro you can use a 45°viewfinder in them. The AOI housing only uses a window where you can partially see the viewfinder and you rely on the rear screen.

No, I expect not approval was manual and the site seems totally unattended and can only be viewed by logged in members.

Actually the 16-35 GMII is on the WACP-1/1B port chart, but it only works between 28 and 35mm zoom settings and will give you about the equivalent of a 12-16mm zoom in rectilinear terms based upon the horizontal field of view. This is not a wide zoom range and you could be left wanting more reach if the sharks are at all shy. If you want to have a zoom behind the WACP, maybe look at the Tamron 28-75 which is on the port charts if you want to be using a lens with better quality than the Sony 28-60. That lens is usable from 28-45 and will get you out to about equivalent to a 30mm lens. I expect it bumps into the back of the WACP beyond about 45mm. I seem to recall some discussion on this lens on the forums. Port Chart: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oPHvkUhf-_rRNqZWTnuIHVa_xnXhSkvI/view

I don't doubt your images in anyway and I have no idea if the MWL-1 is optically similar. The link includes some sample images but unfortunately they are locked away behind a password. The f13 image seems visibly less sharp in the corners, though it's hard to tell at that scale. I seem to recall looking at the linked samples images years ago, but can't access them now.

Just deleted the duplicate post for you.

My standard preset for UW is using AF-C, I haven't used AF_C plus tracking. In tropical waters I've found the AF is pretty good. Recently I was shooting grey nurse sharks early in the day in lower vis waters and it didn't want to focus on the shark body until I got my small single point on an edge, like the outline of the shark, I'm thinking for subjects like that I'll try using a centre cross array of AF points. Normally if there is contrast in the subject it focuses pretty quickly.