Chris Ross

Metabones currently offer a type 2 adapter which will fit the OM-1 this is the m43 to Canon EF lens adapter. The Nauticam N85-N120 adapter for Nauticam ports was designed to use any Canon EF lens with any m43 camera, but they chose to design the adapter for the speedbooster, which was not needed for the 8-15 and adapting other EF lenses to m43 was probably not required as the m43 manufacturers have a very complete range of lenses. There's no shortage of second hand 8-15s though and they are not that hard to find for sale. I think it's more likely that Nauticam decided that WWL/WACP etc were the future for them so trimmed the range of offered ports and adapters. It's a pity as the 8-15 on m43 is an excellent option.

I suspect there are many versions of this lens floating around and design capability for optics has expanded quite significantly since these were originally developed. The statement above quite likely refers to what was available in the 1960s. By the 1970s the possibility of computer aided lens design appeared and was likely used with the Carl Zeiss lens Alex has and likely they were able to improve it significantly with additional elements or other changes like newly available optical glasses. So the newer Inanoff-Rebihoff correctors are likely to better optivally than the simpler ones designed in the 1960s.

Unfortunately I don't have blackwater experience. The 30mm Panasonic seems snappier than the 60mm but I haven't used it for a while. I do know that the 60mm AF is better on the OM-1 and even the Em-1 mkii than the earlier bodies. I think the main reason for the shorter macros in blackwater is the wider field making finding your critter easier. From what I can see the 30 and 60 mm use the same port and you just add an extension tube for the 60mm so it's just the lens cost to add the 30mm.

I I really not sure what version I have, it's not a Mark II, I recall I downgraded the firmware to an older version as I initially had some issue running a big Canon tele lens. But it works perfectly well now. I ground down the adapter a bit, you can see it on the first photo in my post linked above to allow it mount on the OM-1, the viewfinder section on the OM-1 projects forward preventing it from mounting. Maybe that's what they man by being not compatible. I bought the adapter second hand. I do see they have the latest version on sale on their website for $US399 today. The STL file is linked in that post to print the gear.

They both take the same Nauticam port. If you want to minimise things and are into mostly macro the 60mm plus and MFO-3 would be the preferred solution I would think - it comes in handy when you find a larger subject when using the 60mm, think Anemone fish and even larger nudis and scorpion fish - like a Rhinopias. You have to back off too far with bigger subjects. I used it today for a 90-100mm long nudi, much less water between me and it, likewise a 130mm long seahorse. And you can put it on for blackwater. Then you don't need the 30mm.

I can understand this however extension is extension and a change of 2mm in the amount of extension will have minimal impact. Assuming you are using it with the OM-1, I can confirm I'm using it with a N85-N120 + 35mm extension, total extension is 69.7mm. If you got the 47mm N85-N120 you would have 47 +20 = 67mm extension, so 2.7mm less than the tried and tested system. Having the lens 2.7mm further forward will hav eminimum impact on image quality . You could use the 60mm adapter (no zoom knob) with the Nauticam N120 10mm extension for 70mm total, only 0.3mm more. this is so close as to make no difference at all if anything very very slight vignetting. I can confirm that the 3D printed zoom gear I use with the housing zoom knob works perfectly and is a superior solution to using the zoom knob on the adapter. Here is the info: be aware that you need to grind some metal from the Metabones smart adapter to use it with the OM-1. You could of course ask Nauticam about it.

If you are going with the 12-50 (not the sharpest knife in the drawer) you would probably want the WWL-C as it is designed to go with a 24mm equivalent lens - though mating it to the AOI port might be an issue. Zooming to 14mm and not 12 might prove fiddly. I think you want the extension tubes with the 12-50 and 60mm not the 30mm lens The 60mm lens will fill the frame with a 17mm wide subject, adding the CMC-1 will fill it with a 7mm wide subject. I seem to recall the the TG cameras could only approach the magnification (frame filling) of the 60mm macro at very close focus distances making them less useful. I tried to find the field width at max magnification of a TG but couldn't find anything online, I seem to recall testing this on a TG4, but can't remember the results. Long story short - I'm wondering if a CMC is required at least initially. I can see why you picked the lenses to keep the same flatport/extension tube setup, But to really surpass the TG in wide angle I'd suggest a fisheye in a small dome might be worth considering - depending of course upon what sort of subjects you want to shoot. I'd think a small dome might be cheaper than a WWL setup. You cold also consider the Panasonic 30mm macro, I have that and find it very snappy in AF.

No that's the other ID feature- the second fin spine has no membrane so can be moved like a lure, that short rod and fluffy lure certainly point to a Lembeh frogfish . Seems like they aren't that common.

I'm wondering if this adapter could be utilised: Zen UnderwaterPA-N85-SS60 Port Adaptor: Sea & Sea Ports on Nauticam Mir...Zen Underwater Port Adaptor for Sea & Sea Ports on Nauticam Mirrorless Housings. This adaptor was designed to be used in conjunction with the DP-170-SS to accommodate either the Zeiss 12mm E-MounIt's an N85 - N120 S&S adapter you could use this a S&S extension and dome perhaps, the Nauticam 180mm dome has 10mm or so built in extension and i believe this adapter has 60mm extension. So the 8-18 you could get the 170mm dome, 25mm extension and the adapter for about $US1700. The OM 8-25 would need a little more extension. You'd need to check the extension required of course but it seems do-able. If you have a Nauticam dome already you could swap lug rings to use with this setup.

I think you are onto something. from fishbase: "second dorsal-fin spine is unusually long, narrow, without posterior membrane; narrow pectoral-fin lobe, somewhat detached from side of body" The pectoral fin in the photo looks quite narrow and skinny and the dorsal fin spine (which is separate to the lure) has no membrane. The second photo shows start of ocellus spot also. This is the diagram from frogfish website:

Depending on what you want to use it with the 41.7 or 47mm or even the 55mm N85-N120 may work with different extension rings than those used with the 34.7mm adapter, the zoom knob may not line up with the Nauticam zoom gear but you can get around this with a printed gear. I'm using a custom printed gear in conjunction with the housing zoom control with the Canon 8-15 on the smart adapter with the 34.7 and 35mm extension. The 47mm plus 20mm ring is 2mm less extension and I expect would work.

The painted anglerfish lure is on the end of a thin transparent rod: I've highlighted it aboveand the lure is fluffy. If you can find this on your fish it will confirm it is A. pictus. The thing poing forward is I'm thinking the second fin, but it is covered with growth?? I'm thinking maybe I can see the rod and lure on your final shot?? shown here, lure at double head arrow:

I'm thinking it could be faster, The Nauticam one is slower than my card reader, I got 28 MB/sec, while I routinely get 150 MB/sec with the card reader and 75 MB/sec reading from the camera without bulkhead.

Agree, also it looks like the lure is resting on the other side of the fish, if you could see that it would help confirm

Should have a lot better chance of working and price is nicer as well, seems like it comes with two different cables? If you get one it would be nice to report back on charging times and data transfer rates.

To start with you'll need the 34.7mm N85-N120 adapter that's now discontinued I believe, then a lot of extension. Being 20mm equivalent, the 180mm dome is probably fine. It's heavier (690gr) than my Canon 8-15 which requires about 1800 gr of buoyancy to get near neutral with my setup. I think stick to the 8-18 or the OM 8-25mm 😂.

If that is its lure, it looks very odd, the lure is one key ID feature to compare. You could try posting on inaturalist and also have a look at fishbase and browse through the images there. https://fishbase.se/identification/SpeciesList.php?class=&order=&famcode=192&genus=&areacode=&c_code=360&depth=&spines=&fins=&TL=&BD=&resultPage=1&sortby=species or try posting in this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/frogfishlovers

Yes that's the idea, but don't assume your USB plug will pass through, you would need to test it! Originally developed for electric sync cables. I know Nauticam needed to make a new adapter to get the the right-angle USB plug to pass through their M24-M16 adapter.

Welcome to the forum, hope you enjoy it and find it useful.

Thanks for the clarification Phil, I recall people saying the FCP had noticeably small depth of field.

Hi Phil, one thing to note is that in reality the WWL is not equivalent to a 10mm rectilinear. They both have a 130° Diagonal field of view, but the horizontal field with WWL/WACP is about that of a 14mm rectilinear lens which has a 104° horizontal field while the 10 mm Laowa has a 121° horizontal field. This is due to the barrel distortion stretching the corners. So the correct lens to compare it to is a 14mm rectilinear behind a dome. The 14mm has more magnification and so less DOF. Would you say that the WWL still has less DOF than a 14mm rectilinear behind a dome?

Have a look at the table they are comparing 4 different lenses to the 28-60 and saying the 28-70 is not as good as the 28-60. Copyright © 2025 WaterPixels. All Rights Reserved Powered by Invision Community

The post I linked discusses the 28-70 briefly here and in the table above it:

It's not going to be first vs second curtain sync, that just moves the timing of the pulse from the beginning to the end of the exposure. I don't know of any explanation apart from shooting at higher than the maximum sync speed. Shooting macro you would notice any other issues like dark background water as the exposure is entirely from the strobe. Look at the EXIF data in your original files, what ever you use to process the images will report the shutter speed used. More than likely you could review the images in camera and get it to report the aperture/shutter/ISO used.

This is clearly something else, on minimum power they should allow for rapid firing, something is preventing this. The suggestions I posted above are test for potential issues. My first inclination is a problem with the trigger, online I see various issues reported with the Z8 and trying to sync with manual flashes.