Chris Ross

For land based macro this fills a hole created by Canikon deleting their 180mm and 200m macro lenses, I used the Canon 180mm f3.5 a lot in the past there's a lot to be said for long macro lenses. Be interesting to see if it gets taken up UW and if the MFO3 plays well with it!

does it concentrate the light? I'm just thinking lots of other people use them successfully stopped down as you do for macro so judging based on regular strobe positions would be misleading.

Another consideration is that you use the edges of your beam with diffusers in play but with the snoot you aim the centre of the beam right at the subject and you could get the strobe significantly closer to the subject as well. If you halve the distance you get 4x the light or 2 stops. The diffuser reduces total light output from the strobe but the snoot if it has no optics won't reduce the lumens/m2 too much as it is just selecting the light coming out from the strobe beam and blocking the edges of that beam. If you really didn't actually try the snoot at all, then you quite possibly missed this.

I got an MFO3 and waiting to get it UW, I have the bayonet mounts for it and I'll see how that goes. I'm going to try having a parking bayonet on the float arm, but I'll have to see how that works, otherwise I'll have to work out how to carry it. On flip holders I see that the SAGA doesn't have a clip to hold it down tight when in place, I'm wondering if that might be a problem. I see AOI also offers a flip holder which has a clip and it's a bit cheaper.

😂, looking around a bit some sites suggested it might get onto websites through ads- anyway just be careful, I would guess the site is fine as long as you don't follow the instructions.

It comes up after you click around a few different links, not straight away, I just tried again and it seems to come up when I click on the generic excitation filters box. this is what I get:

had a look at the website and there is a suspicious verify you are human page that comes up asking to open a run dialog box and paste in a command the site placed into the clipboard. seems like this is malware of some sort. Needless to say I didn't run the command as asked.

Are you asking how much lift you could design into a float designed for a Macro port 65? If you assume an ID of 75mm and 20mm wide annulus so an OD of 115mm, the port is about 75mm long this gives a displacement of 450 cm3, so the buoyancy would be in the order of 450 minus the weight of the float collar in grams. the straight wall part of the port is only 60mm long and if the float is this long it would displace 360 cm3 so in this case the buoyancy would be 360- float collar weight in grams. A 20mm wide annulus might be a bit much though, with my housing it would extend beyond the housing base so the housing would rest on the float collar rather than the base of the housing.

Saw a pre-order ad today price was $AUD 5900 it's $US3900 at BHPhoto.

Thanks, my OM-1 weighed in at 610 gr with battery and two cards, so seems my scale is close to right and agrees with data. It does prove one thing though that a m43 system is significantly lighter than even Sony full frame - the OM-1 system is only 60% of the weight of the Sony. So the camera size and weight doesn't have as much influence as you might think, the weight of lenses and accessories does add up.

It's 114mm dia x 300mm long so it would possibly need the Nauticam N200 system and the min focus distance is 600mm so probably won't play well with domes. Designed for super 35 but built in convertor for full frame, price - $35,000.

Are these Nauticam housings? I just stuck my Nauticam OM-1 housing on the scale with 60mm macro port and 45° viewfinder installed and it's weight was 2.9 kg. No camera inside. Similarly my OM-1 bare camera with battery is 610 gr on my scale. Are those weights for bare camera or do they include lenses etc?

On your first slug, I think it's not a nudi, I can see no gills, perhaps a Sarcoglossa sp. (sap sucking slugs) possibly a Thuridilla sp. which seems to include a lot of colourful species?

It's not so much the cameras but the lenses - compare an Olympus 60mm macro with a Canon RF100mm macro. 185 grams vs 730 grams, 82 x 56mm vs 149 x 82mm and less than half the price. Or the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 vs the Canon 24-70 f2.8 - 382 grams vs 900 grams and the Olympus is 40% of the price. The olympus lenses also generally focus closer with more magnification (apart from macro lenses) and will work in smaller domes. On the macro front both are 1:1, however with the 2x crop factor a 1:1 lens fills the frame with a subject half the size on Olympus, so less need for diopters.

Have to say I agree.

OM systems has been pretty good at issuing firmware updates for their cameras, bringing new features to the body. A lot of new features rely on more powerful processors and are only available on the latest models. They are also bring features from top line models down to models like the OM-3 fairly quickly.

welcome aboard, good to have another Sydney diver join up!

The biggest issue for Fuji is the limited lens lineup I think with only a handful suitable to use underwater. I really hope m43 keeps going, the small lenses are great, relatively inexpensive and very easy to travel with and it seems to be the camera of choice for macro shooting on land, I follow quite a few people using them macro shooting of bugs etc.

There's also posts on the forum about using the Sony 2x with the 8-15 along with the metabones adapter on the forum. This gives full diagonal fisheye through to about the equivalent of a 14mm lens, very flexible arrangement. I have one adapted to an OM-1 and it provides great flexibility and the optics are excellent. With this setup you have camera - Sony 2x - Metabones - lens. Do you print your own gears or do you get someone to print them for you? One of our forum members, @Gudge has printed zoom gears for me, he's based in Perth if you need someone to print them. He may have a design already.

Nuidbranch names do change quite often and also it is best to use the scientific name when searching as the common name can be shared by a number of species. Google search the scientific name to see if what comes up matches your pic.

not certain about it and the OM-3 certainly seems to tout the subject recognition.

I have good experience with the OM-1, it locks on pretty well, the only thing I notice is that it sometimes won't focus on a close subject as it can see the background through it, but dealing with that becomes instinctive. I can't compare to the OM-5II/3 as I haven't used them but they are said to share the OM-1 AF.

No unfortunately don't have one.

nice shots, my MFO arrives soon, agree the shore dive exits can get a little rough at times. Didn't know you were in town, are you visiting or based here?

There was a thread on here specifically recommending against stacking the MFO-1 and any of the Nauticam close up lenses as they both have the air-water interfaces and would double correct. The Fantasea lens won't have that correction, though it is quite a low power lens compared to the CMC-1 and 2 lenses. If the MFO-1 has a front thread you could try stacking and see if you like the results seeing as you already have the lens. You could even try it in a tub shooting a flat target to see what the quality was like.