Chris Ross

Regarding expense it depends- you could just continue with your Z7 and just buy the Isotta flat port and it will be dirt cheap, you mentioned that as one option for you. I think the Isotta housings are certainly a lot cheaper in Australia, but it seems to vary by country, their extensions are about half the price of Nauticam in USA. Their ports are closer in price, but Isotta still a little cheaper. If you went with Isotta Z8 and assuming they 20mm more extension you just need one 20mm extension ring which would work with all of your other ports including your macro port. So you would be up for Housing plus 20mm extension (if you don't have one) plus a set of zoom gears. Looking at your lenses and guessing you have a 20/30/40mm extension you would appear to be fully covered?? If you went with Nauticam then it's a different story - you should Be able to convert your ports over to Nauticam bayonets, but the extension rings have their lugs machined in and are not adaptable meaning you need to buy some Nauticam extensions unless you can find an adapter. One exists for Nauticam ports on Isotta housings but doesn't seem to be one for Isotta/S&S ports on Nauticam housings so Nauticam will add up to more. You need Zoom gears if changing housings and Isotta are about 1/2 Nauticam price. To convert your ports to Nauticam they need to have a removable lug ring, not all S&S ports have this. The Nauticam lug rings also seem hard to find now and are essential to re-use your ports unless you find an adapter. On the WWL-C it mounts using a Nauticam bayonet only so you would have to take it off and put it "somewhere" to swap to a CMC/SMC and it's big lump of alloy and glass. I don't think swinging is an option. It should be a little wider than a 14mm rectilinear and much smaller physically. Something like equivalent to 12-13mm of horizontal field and will zoom into about a 50° horizontal field, equivalent to about a 40mm lens or so. They stretch more in the corners so are not as wide horizontal field wise as the diagonal field of view suggests. So it would replace your 14-30 and be both wider, longer lighter, physically smaller and won't need to stop down so much. Using the 24-50 with a macro lens is doable but fiddly getting to 0.9x and giving 49mm working distance, but that it from an approximately 150mm wide disc, rather than the ~75mm diameter OD of the nose of a macro port, which will limit approach angles a bit for many subjects.

The port charts don't agree unfortunately take the Nikon Z 14-30, on Isotta they suggest a 60mm extension for all ports. Sea and Sea suggests a 40mm extension again for all ports. The Canon 14-35mm f4 Isotta recommends 50mm, S&S say either 30 or 40mm depending upon port. The statement from Backscatter could mean the ports have the same mount and will fit, it doesn't specifically say the extension rings remain the same after all they would like to sell you some!

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.

the MWL-1 sounds great but was never particularly popular, A prime reason seems to be the recommended aperture of f16. I only ever found one review of it which confirmed f16 was required to be at its best and that you could use at f14 at a stretch. Here's a link to the review: Wetpixel.comReview: Nauticam MWL-1 Conversion Lens by Jack Connick ::Wetpixel is the premiere community website dedicated to underwater photography and videography

It is possibly a change in weather with more humid air , there is not much temperature drop to be causing condensation. The other thing that can happen is getting a few drops of water inside the housing and these evaporate if the housing is in the sun for example, this will significantly increase the humidity inside. You can often get drops clinging to your o-rings. Silica gel can help but it must be fresh and you probably need a good size packet with a large housing. If the air is at all humid they will saturate quickly if not sealed up.

Maybe a better approach if you want both options is to have a custom mode for each of them, so the AF lever activates regular AF in one mode and eye AF in the other. Then to access them just turn the mode dial?

As others have said you need to know which DP100 port you have - it should be labelled, they have different amounts of extension built in, the one designed specifically for the Canon 8-15 is the DP-100-N120CR, this is used with no extension when added to the N100-N120 Nauticam adapter. this is the N120CR dome, you can see the built in extension: Assuming of course you are referring to a DP100 dome, we need to know which one to recommend the right extension. Reef Photo & VideoZen DP-100-N120CR 4 Inch Glass Dome Port for Canon 8-15...Zen DP-100-N120CR 4in Glass Dome Port for Canon 8-15 /4L, Nauticam Housings, Removable Shade So you think you need a huge dome port to take advantage of your fisheye lens? Think again! Canon 8-15 /4L If you have a different model Zen DP 100 you will need to work out the extension required. If you have the 8.5" acrylic dome port it uses the 30mm extension on top of the N100-N120 adapter. it won't be as good for CFWA as the large dome pushes you further back from your subject.

I don't know how much stock you place in DXO data, but here is a comparison of the R5 (mk I), R8 and Sony A1, they all seem pretty close in performance to me: DXOMARKSony A1 vs Canon EOS R8 vs Canon EOS R5 | DXOMARKThe Canon 24-50 kit lens is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and there have been several posts about its relatively poor performance. As far as AF performance goes the specs say the AF sensitivity on the R5 II is -6 - 21EV while the min for the A1 is -4EV, seems close but the devil is in the details of how they measure that. Probably best to see if you find some land based reviews to see what that means in real life as there are probably not many who have shot both underwater and with blue water pelagic experience. You could also ask a question on the forum about settings people use for sharks/whales in lower light on your R5 II to compare with what you do. Looking at things like AF mode - single vs continuous, various AF settings and which AF points you use etc. Also faster lenses should generally provide more light for AF assuming that AF occurs with the lens wide open. I see that the EF 28mm f1.8 and f2.8 primes are listed as working with the WACP 1B. Again on these optics there is an entrance pupil limitation, favouring slower lenses and my understanding is that this is why the range of lenses listed in the port charts is limited.

A few considerations on upgrading as you know the widest lens that doesn't vignette for the WACP series is 28mm so both of the 20-50 lenses would need to zoom into 28mm in operation and you can't just get there by turning the dial out you have to look to see you have got to 28mm. I could see this being an issue when trying to work quickly. Also neither 20-50 lens is on the WACP-C port charts as yet and particularly fast lenses might not work with the WACP-C, though the Sony 24-50 f2.8 is on the WACP-C port chart, but there appears to be a typo in the port chart and the line advising the zoom range is 28-50 seems to be missing. I believe they have a limit on entrance pupil size which impacts what lenses work in that system. Assuming you are looking at both lenses behind the WACP-C The WACP-1/1B includes the Sony 20-70 f4 lens, but most of the lenses for that optic are also kit lenses. What exactly is the concern with with the R-5II? I would have thought the sensor capabilities of the A1 and R5 II to be very close, Is there no option to cap maximum ISO when using auto ISO? It might be worth asking the question how Canon shooters handle blue water metering as well, could be a better option than a system switch?

The least reliable advice for anything remotely technical by a large margin is AI, lost count of the number of times it has conflated a few different web pages about different models from the same manufacturer and confidently comes up with an incorrect answer. But honestly, just look at the housing - where would you put a trigger? And the AOI trigger is part of the housing and the LEDs are hard wired in so it's their trigger or no trigger, unless you want to perform surgery on your brand new housing. I would be contacting Backscatter and pointing out those issues with their advice and asking how they came up with it.

They might work but they need an additional load on top of the onboard pulse load. If you get one consider the adjustable load one. I think the PD spec is what is killing this, any low power stay on option assumes you only want to draw a little power. If the camera can last one full dive on a fresh battery the path of least resistance might to plug it into a big power bank PD rated via USB bulkhead. Of course this will compete with using an external monitor and vacuum system unless you can find one of the offset vacuum valves which allow vacuum and bulkhead on one M16 hole. Crazy price of $US590 to manufacture one on demand.