Chris Ross

Don't know how long ago it was purchased, but seems like a lemon, I would be putting the hard word on them for a replacement.

I would think no problem to fit into an N100 port, the OD of the Canon 8-15 is listed as 78.5 while the ID of my N85-N120 adapter is 77mm, so It is only just short of fitting through my N85 system. The Canon lens is 225gr more than the Sony, but for situation it's moot as you can't use the 2x TC with the Sony lens. This won't change until/if someone produces a quality 2x TC without a protruding nose. There is probably some weight saving with a pure N100 setup - you could replace the N100-N120 with a 35mm extension but I expect the N100 dome is very similar weight. I'm just playing modifying the zoom gear I had printed to use the main housing zoom control on my OM-1 housing and it occurs to me that an N100 housing for the OM-1 would solve a lot of issues and would also allow Nauticam to streamline their range of ports. The N85 port is just a little too small for many of the interesting m43 lenses.

You can certainly use the MFO-3 it comes with an m67 adapter to allow it to work on any m67 port. The basic option would be screw it on when you need, but I expect you'd be a lot happier with a flip adapter or some sort of bayonet system - I'm not certain but the pics of the flat port look like it should take the Nauticam bayonet adapter but you would need to check the adapter will fit over the lip of the port. If that works, the SMC with a Bayonet ring should also work. Whether it works will depend on how wide the lip is on the end of the port is (where the M67 thread is) as the Nauticam adapter fits over the lip as it screws on.

Just stumbled across a post from Alex Mustard, posting some photos taken with the new Retra pure II strobe. I have the Pure strobes which are 70 Ws rated and use a slightly smaller diameter circular flash tube which gets more of the strobe light entering a snoot. Here's a link to the post on Facebook: Alex Mustard Pure II Apparently shipping Nov 23. said to be their lightest strobe. Here is the info on Retra's website: Retra Pure II

You would get a 180 diagonal frame same as at 14mm at about 9.5mm zoom on APS-C and the zoom equivalent would be a bit closer at 14mm compared to using a 1.4x TC. Whether it's a bad idea or not - hard to say, it's not a bad idea but maybe is of limited benefit. It can help with framing the subject but you might just as well crop in post. If the ability to zoom helps you compose better then perhaps yes it will work well for you.

There are a number of issues. First the SONY TC won't mount to the Sony fisheye, second issue is that the Kenko don't make a TC for Sony E mount. The Laowa lens in E mount has the same issues. I can't see it taking a SONY converter due to the extended nose making it impossible to mount. The Canon 8-15 has the advantage of being designed for a camera with 44mm flange distance - this gives plenty of room to install an AF converter. With the 8-15 you can get a Kenko 1.4x or 2x and mount to the Metabones though the performance of the 2x is reported to be not great. The interesting part for SONY users is that the Sony e mount 2x works very well with the 8-15 in conjunction with the metabones adapter and it really only does this because of the fact it has a long back focus as it is designed for a DSLR. The downside is the Canon 8-15 is no longer made so you need to buy it second hand. I think with the Canon 8-15 the message is enjoy it while it lasts, in the current state of play with all mirror-less cameras in the future adapting lenses will become a thing of the past and we will eventually lose the ability to have a fisheye zoom option unless Tokina or someone comes up with a new 10-17 or similar. The short flange distance of the mirrorless lenses will make it difficult to adapt any of them or use them with coverters unless Kenko extends their range of converters.

I use Capture One for initial RAW processing and selection then an old copy of PS CS6. Essential features to me - it needs a levels tool, masking must be straight forward. I would like to be able to soft proof images and need to be able to use a calibrated monitor. Backscatter removal cloning tool needs a one touch tool like PS. I just tap each spot on a tablet. An actions tool like PS is also an essential for me, i have actions which take my processed tif and resize to a set pixel size , add shapening layers do initial sharpening and place a copyright notice. The dodge/burn tools also get use - PS allows burning of only the highlights so for example will dull down backscatter without impacting the background. On the topic of masking I use the Tony Kuyper free luminosity masks plug in in PS makes controlling shadow/midtone/brights contrast so easy . I tried Affinity photo and while its good at levels curves etc. masking is ridiculously convoluted and I gave up. The sort of masking I am talking about is using a monochrome version of the image suitably adjusted with contrast and/or inverting it. Doing this in PS is a single click to get the image placed as a monochrome mask. Affinity requires jumping through flaming hoops. I'm a bit different to the average user in that I do everything with levels and curves etc, the original toolset in PS. I don't need all the other so called smart tools as I can do just about everything they do with the basic set of PS tools and some masking capability.

A fisheye lens can produce a 180 deg diagonal image, which is around 140-145 deg horizontal field depending upon the the exact mapping of the lens in question. A true rectilinear cannot do this due to optical limitations so there has to be some barrel distortion. There are several fisheye projections available including equidistance and equisolid which is what the Canon 8-15 uses. There is also stereographic which appears to be what is used in the new 10mm laowa lens and based on some calculations, I believe the WWL-1 and WACP use a similar projection I would expect that Nauticam has modified their optics from WWL/WCP to give it a wider field which results in a 170 deg field on the diagonal and is quite likely to use the same or similar projection. The Bob Atkins website shows a comparison plot of these projections, scroll down to the fisheye section. Bob atkins field of view Those same calculations show that while the WWL/ WACP have a 130 deg diagonal field which suggest they are equivalent to a 10mm lens their horizontal field is actually closer to a 13-14mm lens. This implies the horizontal field of these optics is less then expected and a true fisheye should have a wider horizontal field. The other issue reported is that FCP seems to have less depth of field than what you would expect compared to a traditional fisheye when used for CFWA. If yiu serach the forum you might find that post.

If you want a nudi with totally black BG, I think a snoot is really required and you'll get some spill of light onto whatever it's sitting on depending on how small you snoot beam is and how it is aimed. Personally I like some BG inclusion and haven't ventured into snoot work. Inward lighting can also be effective, but it won't get a totally isolated nudi. Agree with the others, don't touch the nudis, they can be very fragile, I expect like fish they be injured easily by handling.

also 1:1 is at 49mm from the front element so about 40mm +/- from the port glass - very close and difficult to light. The Canon lenses similar to this one would be a better option, they have a RF 24 and 35mm STM macro available, they do up to 0.5x, which is probably the practical limit to light the subject with those focal lengths.

It would be a great addition, you probably could use the adapted Canon 8-15 or even the Tokina 10-17 with speed booster even with AOI, but you would be guessing about extensions needed. Though I don't think an 8-15 m43 would be high on their list to start making somehow.

Then you can use two of the INON 90 mega float arm 208 arms for 1394 kg lift. If you want to offset all of that be aware the rig will not want to be pointing up as Archimedes insists that the float arms are floating the highest. I use two Isotta arms at 670 gr each and the rig does not like being twisted upwards. I'm thinking I may place some foam under the housing to help float that upwards. This is only with the Canon 8-15 setup which is noticably heavier than the 60mm macro with my strobes. I seem to recall that 8-15 rig being 1.8kg -ve in total My macro rig is the same as yours, but I have Retra Pure (110g -ve with boosters) the Pro Max II lists at 160gr -ve. I'll have to weigh mine again at some point.

What field are you looking at? A fisheye (or add a teleconverter) would allow this and can be used in a small dome if required, or you could look at the MWL-1 it gives a 150 deg diagonal field, it's used with a Sony 50mm macro, downside is it needs to be shot at f14-16 to give its best. It can get close to the bottom as it's only 100mm diameter. It also works with a Sony 28-70 f3.5-5.6 lens between 60 and 70mm to give a 150-110° diagonal field. You could probably use a Canon 8-15 with sony 2x combo with a zen 100mm dome (at the cost of a little corner performance) to get fields between full 180° diagonal fisheye and something approaching a 28mm FF rectilinear in terms of horizontal field and it will focus down to the dome.

With exactly the same setup diving around home , only difference is the model of Retra strobe , mine I recall are 20g -ve or so in water and an INON focus light at 165gr in water, I use two INON 390g float arms and two 135 gr float arms. It's pretty close to neutral, just slightly negative. You would use two of the new 437 gr INON arms and come up at about the same weight I am less the INON torch. I always use back button focus in combo with C-AF underwater, seems to work pretty well.