Chris Ross

On the why I expect it's to reduce the number of different housings they make, they have been trimming their port charts from discontinued lenses and dropping various adapters and ports as well. Possibly offering 3 different port systems (4 if you count the compacts) might be taking its toll. You could also look to other vendors, Isotta is about $2k cheaper for the housing for example.

You could also carve a whole float collar out of such material if you have the dimensions, just do the volume calculations if you know the foam density. It would need a steady hand with a hot wire cutter to make it neat though. Mozaik still list the buoyancy collar for WWL-1 for $92CAD and they ship out of Vancouver. You could also check them for the Stix collar. they seem to have a coupon code for 12% off - no tariffs. If you used the Nauticam buoyancy collar and assuming you are shooting stills not video you could take that weight into account with float arms

Most mirrorless FF cameras have some version of this as an option, you still however have to pay $$ extra for the housing and camera and need to check the fine print on how it does video in such a situation. If it's playing intermittently could be an issue with the RF-EF adapter or some sort of contact issue.

Perhaps, but first you have to find one and keep it alive. T here's no substituent for a proper AF fisheye IMO and a fisheye zoom is just so versatile, which is why people are mucking around with using Sony 2x on on an adapted Canon 8-15. With the Canon 8-15 being discontinued it means that even if it's replaced by an RF version it only helps CANON RF users and won't be adaptable to Sony. Nikon still seems to be making their 8-15 for now though.

I have been looking around at various foam options to make a float for my rig, a lot of places have the foam used for insulation under house slabs which is specified as high density and low water absorption and densities in the range of 30-33kg/m3. This means it has a buoyancy of about 970 kg/m3 or 0.97 gr/cm3. According to the page for the original WWL-1 float collar the lens is 160 gr negative UW with the collar. so it would need about 160/0.97 = 165 cm3 of 30kg/m3 foam. This is a cube about 5.5 cm or 2.1" on a side. If you can source some of this foam you could carve out a piece in the shape of an arc matched to the OD of float collar about 20cm long x 4cm wide and 2 cm thick and glue/screw it to the float collar you already have. With a bit of searching you could probably find a piece of the foam at an art supply place - it's used for sculpture, you would look for XPS foam with a density of 30-35 kg/m3.

I don't trim down by that much, but I'll throw all the obviously out of focus stuff, missed subject, accidental triggers etc and keep what's sharp and half-way well composed as Raw files and keep them in site specific folders. I'll also throw duplicates if I have lots of near identical shots. Process the selects to tiffs and jpegs to master folders . Eventually they make their way to my website where they are subject or trip organized. Nothing particularly scientific, but it keeps the storage requirements reasonable. My images library probably takes up about 2.5-3 TB in various folders. I have 4TB SSD storage drive and a conventional 4TB backup in an enclosure. It enough to keep 30+ years of images. I lost some scanned images quite a few years back during the process of upgrading PCs as far as I can tell, but the last 25-30 years worth of images are still there. My thoughts are that is the storage requirements are reasonable and it's organised enough to find an image with just a few minutes searching this is enough.

As far as I know just turn it on before closing the housing. I've seen people report the battery lasts a very long time. That's a very well used looking R5 though, my old 1DMkIV looks in way better nick.

Didn't realise it's discontinued. Doesn't bode well for UW photographers. Even if Canon bring out an RF version it won't be readily adaptable to other systems like the EF version.

Well that solved an issue for me, I have an Atomos shinobi I use on land for macro focus stacking and diving deep into the menus to set HDMI output to match the monitor means it now switches instantly to display an image and connects up way faster. Now if only I could stop the camera switching off focus bracketing when a monitor is plugged in!

Depth of field with just a lens at constant aperture varies directly with magnification. So if you frame up the subject the same way with the same size in frame depth of field on the subject will be the same or very close when just using a lens without domes and virtual images. As you get closer and the subject gets larger the the depth of field goes down. You can frame it with a longer focal length from further away or up close with a wide angle - if the subject size is the same the depth of field remains pretty much the same. Behind a dome the depth of field goes up as the min focus to infinity image is compressed into 3 dome radii. Of course the dome needs to be positioned properly if the lens is too far inside the dome you lose some of the in focus range as it's inside the port. Now if you compare the 8-15 with 2x behind a dome and the FCP, the zoom range is near identical just slightly more reach for the long end on the FCP and both focus on the dome so they can achieve the same subject size. In this situation the FCP has less depth of field than the 8-15. It only makes sense to compare DOF at the same magnification, a bigger subject size in frame means the depth of field will be less. As to why the FCP has less depth of field I don't know, perhaps the virtual image is not as compressed and you lose the DOF advantage you have with a lens behind a dome? The way the background appears does vary with focal length so taking an image right up close with something like a 24mm lens then taking the same image with a 500mm lens (on land) you will see a dramatic difference in the bokeh or background blur, but in UW photography you don't get into such extremes

Massimo tested the Nauticam CMC lenses and INON lenses a while back and produced a video which would be on his site. He shows photos of a ruler at max magnification so you could back calculate the power. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ_zYSw9o94

Presumably this is a Nauticam flash trigger which would be manual only. So set the camera to manual plug it into the hotshoe and turn the trigger on, fire a test shot and check the LEDs flash. The camera shouldn't even know it's there. Once you have it flashing you should be able to install it in the housing and attach your optic fibre cables and fire away. If it's another brand you might need to do something else, but if you confirm it's Nauticam this is how it should work.

It wasn't expressed well, but I was specifically referring to the FCP which is what an 8-15 with 2x emulates. Reports are that the FCP seem to have more limited DOF. I can't comment on the specifics of depth of field of the WWL/WACP, though I suspect they have similar lens designs to the FCP. In general depth of field after you've accounted for aperture is related solely to magnification. The image scale at the wide means depth of field is generally pretty good and being behind a dome the depth of field is compressed into the virtual image which extends from touching the dome to about 3 dome radii. On a 140mm dome that's about the edge of the dome to about 210mm away. The lens also only knows about the virtual image as that is what it images. So the end result is that depth of field is higher than shooting the same scene without a dome. The FCP though seems to be doing something different possibly making a much bigger virtual image or something similar as the examples showed in the thread back when it was released certainly seemed to have less DOF than you would expect.

I think it was explained above that the idea behind it was for a low powered wet lens to give about 1.2x magnification and I expect it is probably a decent improvement over the +3 lenses previously available. Alex Mustard is the one who made this point - saying there are lots of subjects that could benefit from a small increase in magnification. While opportunities to use a 2x + lens are more limited. Of course this could vary depending on where you are diving. The MFO is certainly not an alternative to the SMC-1 lens.

Extension tubes have more effect on shorter focal lengths , I suspect it would reduce the minimum focus distance too much, it's already quite short on the 35mm lens.

First of all nice work, must be quite the task lining all this up with the water movement and the short working distances. I think most Ceratosoma sp. feed on sponges storing the toxins from their prey in glands. The shrimp I expect make use of "safe" transport as the nudis are left alone as they taste so bad. I expect there is no shortage of detritus around the the nudi and the shrimp happily feast on it as the nudi travels to new locations. They seem to be picking up little particles as they move about the nudi and the one underneath just taking advantage of what is stirred up.

I should add that I would think it would be worth at least trying it out in a pool or lake before travelling, what seems perfectly practical can end up causing unanticipated issues which may be difficult to fix in the field. For example I set my rig before I travelled to be near neutral and I had a 690 gr and a 210 gr float arm on each side. I found it took lots of torque to twist up and the solution was swapping out the 210 gr arms for standard arms and diving with it about 450gr negative. I'm going to try out a bottom float of about 400 grams on my next trip. Stills of course is a lot less demanding than video when it comes to trimming and I'm just trying for near neutrality without a lot of torque to aim up.

I think the big advantage of the 8-15 with 2x is it's versatility. it goes from a 175-180° full diagonal fisheye through to about a 28mm equivalent. I use the 8-15 with my OM-1 which gives the same range as available on FF with the 8-15 plus 2x. You would need to have a gear printed with the 2x but that should not be a major obstacle. It is effectively a 15mm fisheye, WWL-WACP with 28-60 and 14-28 lens in one package, albeit with some barrel distortion throughout the range. And it seems at least as sharp as the WACP/28-60 combination. My calculations suggest the WWL-WACP/28-60 combination has the about the reach of a 32mm lens at 60mm compared to the 28mm reach of the 8-15/2x which is pretty close and I suspect would be sufficient for most users. In fact I'm wondering if Nauticam could have perhaps worked with someone like Metabones to develop a custom 2x converter tuned to the 8-15 lens rather than developing the FCP port. It might avoid the limited depth of field the FCP seems to have at close focus. You could have a 1.5x model as well which could be used on APS-C and would also find application on full frame. All of this is possible due to the high optical quality of the Canon 8-15.

Good questions, It's hard to say till you try, the basics are relatively simple - the floats want to be on top and the housing/weights below and generally speaking keeping it symmetrical. In principle when trying to keep the whole thing neutral, I expect adding weight is probably easier than subtracting buoyancy. and ideally that weight could become your trim as well. The issue you may run into could be that float arms are more or less vertical while the float between the rail is horizontal so the distribution of buoyancy shifts when you tilt the rig. Same thing with your monitor - if it's behind the housing it's like an extension of the housing and can be balanced with sliding weights. If it's above as you tilt it over it's going to start pulling down. Perhaps you could mount a buoyancy block behind the monitor with the other block directly below it? In principle making the monitor also neutral would free up where you position it. Once you decide how to mount your monitor then you can think about where to place the buoyancy I think.

I think not exactly apples to apples comparison, this tests out the sharpness but does not consider the barrel distortion which tends to pull the subject forward in the frame in comparison to the edges. This effect becomes increasingly less obvious as you zoom in. @Alex_Mustard has chimed in when I have been comparing fields of view between fisheyes and other lenses with this observation on a number of occasions Counting squares in the centre crop looks like the image scale is 1.16x for the WACP at 60 over the 8-15 @ 30mm which could be handy for some marginal objects but with MP available I think hardly noticeable in details captured. Interestingly my calculations say almost the same thing 1.16 vs 1.17 image scale factor. To me the 8-15/2x combo has sharpness advantage in the corners at least at the wide end (just really looking at the 140mm - the 180mm as expected is a little worse).

I think if you add half the required buoyancy at the rails at the bottom and the other half in float arms it should be a lot closer to balanced. The other thing with rails is if place your dome balance weights at the end of the rails they have more leverage to pull the dome down than if the weight is around the neck of the port. The other consideration is having some small excess of the buoyancy above which means this is the natural floating position, if the excess is below then it will want to be on top.

My take is it is more useful on FF than APS-C at least from what has been presented so far. Alex likes it specifically as a small increase in magnification. The EF 100mm increases magnification to 1.2x with the MFO. In one of the videos on close up lenses a while back Alex mentioned that his most used diopter was about a +3 unit and it had about a 1.2- 1.3x magnification and this was the original premise of the the MFO. The diopter Alex used was a standard 2 element doublet design, the MFO optics will be superior to this type of diopter more than likely as the MFO has built corrections for the flat port interface. The problem as you go up in magnification is specifically finding small enough subjects to use them on. If you stay at APS-C then you've already got a 1.6x crop factor over full frame if you use the same lens, so even less critters findable that can use that type of magnification.

Unfortunately the forum software reduces these images to 1200px wide - even if you donwload the image it's 1200 px wide. The best way to compare views seems to be as follows: Open link in dropbox go to top RH corner and choose magnification I picked 50% gives you a better sense of image sharpness I think Scroll around in top LH corner of each image to bring up a polyp that appears to be in focus. swap between tabs to compare. Here's a small crop snipped from each of 24 and 26 images side by side. I just picked an area with polyps that looked in focus. Top LH corner. To me there's not much to pick between them, maybe an edge to 24, you can make out texture on the polyp arm coming up towards mid frame.. Didn't include 28 as it has a quite different image scale.

Agree, when I first started I had the idea to use TTL as it works so well on land, but soon found manual was nowhere near as hard as it seemed, the key is recognize that the flash exposure remains constant if the distance doesn't change to your subject. Realistically for most macro subjects from fist sized down to small nudis, the distance doesn't change that much and as you get closer the increased magnification reduces the exposure somewhat (varies with the lens you use of course) which kind of compensates. The end result is I rarely change flash exposure very much on a dive - maybe only when I'm shooting something like the size of a weedy sea dragon and opening up the aperture to do that is viable as you don't need as much DOF.

Looks like a great project, presumably the idea is to get the rig neutral and move the weights to change from horizontal trim to pointing up/down. It's an interesting 3-dimensional balance problem, the weights/housing want to stay at the bottom and the floats want to stay at the top so it takes increasingly more torque to twist the whole rig to point upwards. I discovered how much using about 1.4kg of floats on my strobe arms with my rig - it was close to neutral but did not want to point up. The point is if your angles are small then it won't take much to change the trim but pointing something like 30-45° up will be more of a challenge. If you increase the weight of the balance weights to assist you need more buoyancy up top which makes things worse. I faced a similar issue balancing a fork-mount astronomical telescope - they work best if well balanced and you can point them anywhere in the sky and they will stay with only slight friction on the clutches when done properly. I had a smaller guide scope piggy-backed on top and to achieve balance I needed weights equivalent to the weight of the guide scope on the opposite side of the main scope and a much smaller sliding trim weight. Thinking about how to achieve something similar if that's your aim you would need to split your flotation 50/50 between above and below the housing. An additional complication is if you have lights on arms, the balance will change every time you move them. The solution might then be to make the lights neural with a float collar on each of them. You could for example make your lights neutral, then balance the housing with buoyancy split between the arms for the lights and the other 50% strapped to in the inside of your rails. you could move the bottom floats back and forward to help with front/back trim. Just some thoughts on how to make it balanced in most positions.