Chris Ross

All of these diopters would be sealed using o-rings I would guess, so it's possible a minute amount of water has entered - probably just a trace amount. If it's water vapor condensing then it should go away if you warm up the diopter a little. Of course it will come back when it cools off but it proves it is likely to be water vapour.

Regardless I think taking it apart and replacing o-rings would be required. You would need a tool to remove the retaining ring and be able to source replacement o-rings to fix it.

1 hour ago, waso said:

Unfortunately, I don't understand this statement - could you explain it again in other words?

In my opinion, my only option with the R5 is to use the RF/EF adapter, the Kenko TC and then the 8-15/4 lens.

Or do you mean I should replace the Kenko with a Canon RF 1.4x teleconverter (that I already own), then an extension tube and then mount the 8-15/4? Wouldn't I lose focus at infinite distance? Or would that be irrelevant because of the projection in the dome port? But maybe I misunderstood you completely...

This was in answer to your questions regarding the Sony 2x with 8-15. That is possible as the Sony-EF metabones acts as a 26mm spacer to allow you to add the 2x or 1.4x and the 8-15 still focuses. Remember in a dome you are focusing on a virtual image so are focusing very close. You would think that having a spacer between the 1.4x or 2x and the 8-15 would not focus, but testing on Sony systems using a Sony 1.4x or 2x on the camera then a metabones adapter then the Canon 8-15 shows it works perfectly well and the image quality with the Sony 1.4x is better than using the Kenko.

If you could replicate the same spacer as the Sony setup with Metabones and the 8-15 you might be able to do something similar with the Canon setup. It was discussed previously on the forum- if an RF 1.4x would work with the Canon RF-EF converter but unfortunately people tried and it doesn't work, apparently an extra tab on the RF 1.4x prevents mounting the Canon RF-EF adapter and the ID is too small for the 1.4x nose.

If you were interested to experiment it might be possible to do something similar to the Sony setup with a Canon RF system, this link has some discussion, scroll to second last post and look at the video:

So this setup would be RF 1.4x on camera then the modified third party RF-EF adapter then the Canon 8-15

Unfortunately this method requires taking a file to a third party RF-EF adapter but if you did that it might work with the RF 1.4x. Of course it is a gamble as you would not be able to return the adapter after filing if it doesn't work, so you would need to be prepared to take that risk, plus you are hoping the image is better to justify trying it out.

I had a thought that maybe using a Canon EF 1.4x and an extension tube mounted to an RF-EF adpter might work, however I tried this on a CANON DSLR I have and a 25mm extension tube and it won't focus. It might work with a 12mm after market extension but it would be a gamble.

In both the Canon and the Sony case the total spacing of the Metabones or RF-EF adapter plus the camera flange distance is equal to the Canon EF flange distance of 44mm which is likely why it can focus correctly. which makes me think the EF 1.4x option probably would not work.

On the WACP-C vs WWL-1 vs WWL-C I seem to recall posts from people on SONY systems expressing the view that the WWL-1 and WACP were nearly equivalent with the same lens and depending on the lens the long end was not as good as the wide end. You could try reading through such posts. Here is an example discussion, where there is a discussion where the Sony 2x plus 8-15 and WACP-C are compared:

If you take a pragmatic viewpoint the advantage of the WACP-C lies in flexibility perhaps more so than absolute image quality. The Canon 8-15 with SONY 2x is equivalent in quality to the WACP combo and with the SONY 1.4x is better in image quality than with the kenko 1.4x and also better than the WACP combination - at least on Sony with the 28-60 according to posts in the linked topic. The 8-15 is of course very sharp and bare will have the very best image quality, but lacks reach. Whether the lack of reach is an issue depends on what you are shooting and the reach may allow you to get better images if you needed to crop an 8-15 image.

For those wanting to see the news page including a video with Alex and Matthew discussing the strobe here is a link:

https://www.retra-uwt.com/products/retra-maxi?srsltid=AfmBOorr_9G-QMUsgogETlI04k5pbBl880_aCycwoIofkEd05Yeksar6

1 hour ago, Dave_Hicks said:

The circlips are generic parts and easy to source, as are the orings. Circlips are also integral to holding the housing together. I don't know that the springs actually wear out at all, and they are not going to impact the integrity of the housing. I don't think they are something you should put any energy to replacing if you are DIYing the job. Now a proper service center is going to have all these parts on hand, so yes of course they should replace the springs, rubber tips, etc. It's what you are (over) paying for.

Yes, but they can corrode and they lose tension over time, I would still try and source them if possible.

If you are going to the trouble, definitely replace the circlip as Dave suggests and also replace the springs. You need to lubricate everything as well, the o-rings need a little more grease than your main o-ring as I understand it as it is never replaced until the next service. There's not much in the way of guides on how to do this out there, though Ikelite has a video for their housings.

There have been various posts talking about the pros and cons of the various combinations of lenses and Nauticam wet optics as well as comparing performance of rectilinear lenses behind various domes. Few points you might consider:

The recommended dome for the Canon 8-15 in Nauticam is the 140mm dome. Fisheyes are much less sensitive to dome size compared to rectilinear lenses and smaller dome sizes help with getting closer to take CFWA shots. You can even use the 100mm Zen dome with the 8-15, though corner quality might take a small hit.

There is an extensive set of tests of various Canon optics in this post:

It tests the Canon 24-50 behind the WWL and doesn't have good things to say about it. The Nikon 24-50/WWL-C combination is generally rated quite well, however the Canon 24-50 kit lens seems to be significantly poorer in optical quality. Now this is with the WWL-C, however I recall other posts stating there is not much to pick between the WWL and WACP-C with other lenses. Bear in mind too that the 24-50 needs to zoom into 28mm to remove vignetting with the WWL-1 - the WWL-C is designed for 24mm lenses.

Rectilinear lenses generally require big domes, though some of the newer lenses that focus much closer work well with the 180mm dome. They lack the barrel distortion which enlarges the subject in the centre making fisheye images pop.

On the subject of teleconverters with the Canon 8-15 you mention the Sony 1.4x/2x with the Canon 8-15, these work because they place the Metabones adapter between the teleconverter and the 8-15. Optical quality is better than using the Kenko 1.4x. It needs this order of assembly as the nose of the 1.4x fits inside the the empty spacer of the Metabones adapter.

In this case the metabones acts like a 22mm spacer. In theory you could use the a RF 1.4x- Canon RF-EF -Canon 8-15, but the RF-EF won't work with an RF 1.4x. In theory again a Canon RF-EF-Canon EF 1.4x- aftermarket EF 12mm or 20mm extension tube- Canon 8-15 might work, but you'd need to test it.

In general I would say the Canon 8-15 is an exceptionally sharp lens and very hard to beat behind a dome as fisheyes naturally work well behind domes and is a great solution if you don't need extra reach.

The last point is that comparing diagonal field of view is a little misleading - you normally don't place subjects on the diagonal and fisheye lenses have the most stretching of the field in the corners. The WACP/WWL is like a zoomed in fisheye lens in terms of barrel distortion present. The horizontal field of a 180° (nominal) diagonal fisheye is about 144° while a WWL with 130° diagonal field has about a 106° horizontal field. The 8-15 is reported to achieve 175° diagonal field. This table compares horizontal and diagonal fields:

The Rectilinear equivalent is the focal length of a rectilinear lens with the same horizontal field.

You can compare the field you would get from a Canon 8-15 with 14mm FF equivalent rectilinear here, it's on m43 sensor so the comparison is the 8-15 at 8mm and the 7-14 at 7mm. This is equivalent to the 8-15 at 15mm and 14mm rectilinear on full frame.

I recall you said that you had a steady red light which is the battery. If you lose the vacuum it's a blinking red light and it should go through yellow first . You can test this by pulling a vacuum and then immediately releasing it and observing what the lights do. It's always possible the valve has had it, if it uses a soft seat for example, that will eventually wear out. But to be sure about this see if the circuit does as described when releasing the vacuum as you would do if you wanted to open the housing.

Another way to test if to see if you can fit your friends valve to see if it comes good with that. BTW the tool you showed is for the new model vacuum valve, you model without the press button uses a wrench with a little pin that fits in one of the holes on the valve. scroll down to the bottom of this link, above the pic of the pump:

Nauticam

If it doesn't do this as described, you have a different problem. A fresh battery not fixing it does not necessarily it's not a battery issue either, You might have bad battery contacts or the wire or switch has some issues with extra resistance or it could be a problem with the pressure sensor. A new valve/alarm system should certainly get you back in working order if that's the case.

apparently the vacuvin pumps for resealing wine work??

3 hours ago, CaolIla said:

I read that the "theoritical" working distance and d.o.f. is "better" but how is it in the real life?

I notice that unhelpfully the SMC-1 is no longer in the port chart so you can't compare working distances any longer. Depth of field increase I'm not sure hoe they would increase this - it's generally proportional to magnification.

First suggestion is fresh battery. Though it should blink red/blue when switched if low. If you lose vacuum it signals this by flashing red not solid red. I found another reference online which indicates that solid red is dead battery. That's you best bet I think.

9 hours ago, CaolIla said:

@hedonist222 My question is: What is the benefit of the SMC-3 compared to the SMC-1.
1) lighter that's ok

2) how is the working distanceimprovement?

the port chart provides this information. My understanding was that the 1 and the 3 were very close in performance.

Depth of field is a function of magnification, if you reduce the magnification on the sensor you get more depth of field at constant f-stop. There are special cases with wet lenses but shouldn't apply to a simple diopter. Bearing in mind of course that the depth of field is already razor thin at less than 1mm with the bare lens at 1:1 magnification.

On 12/6/2025 at 2:39 PM, Jens H said:

That’s the correct way, but use WORMS page to check if the name is correct or outdated: https://www.marinespecies.org

Once you have determined the scientific name of an animal, you can find out about its lifestyle, behavior, ecology, etc., regardless of whether you look up Discodoris atromaculata or Peltodoris atromaculata, for example: you will receive the same information. Names are pretty irrelevant; it is more important to know about other things. And I say that as a biologist. :-)

Far too often, some divers know the exact names of underwater organisms, whether scientific or popular scientific names. But they know nothing about their way of life and ecology. It should be the other way around!

Yes, though it's surprising how little info there is on many species!

Welcome aboard Kip, good to have you here.

Same here, I have not had a housing serviced as yet, my Em-1 MkII was 6 years old and not serviced in that time, My local dealer said it was needed unless you had issues.

10 hours ago, ACHiPo said:

Nauticam claims the MFO3 turns a 90 mm into a ~60mm. Does that mean it would turn a 60mm into ~45mm?

The MFO3 turns a 90 into a 50 and a 105 into a 60mm They report the Olympus lens becomes the equivalent of about a 35-37mm range of lens, which matches my experience.

This is my shot of a Rhinopias frondosa:

https://www.aus-natural.com/Underwater/Diver%20Lodge%20Lembeh%20-Sulawesi/Lembeh%20Selects/slides/Weedy-Rhinopia.html

The dorsal fin looks quite different to yours, though it is fading into shadow in teh shot, it looks like a regular dorsal fin rather tahn a series of flag like spines. It is showing the start of the spotty pattern they have though. Inaturalist thinks it might be an ambon scorpionfish, but I'm not sure,

Really nice Ben, fascinating creatures to watch

19 hours ago, Jens H said:

The “bible” of nudibranchs. Here you will find almost everything you need to know about nudibranchs that you might encounter underwater. Unfortunately currently out of stock, try to get a used copy or a PDF:

Nudibranchs of the World (Debelius, Kuiter), ISBN 978-3939767060.

Nice book on creatures you see during muck diving. However, it is still not complete -that would be mission impossible:

Muck Diving: A Diver's Guide to the Wonderful World of Critters (Nigel Marsh), ISBN 978-1921517815

I have a copy of this book, I have been told there are some inaccuracies in it, I think from one of the Nudibranch ID facebok groups and also that a lot of species have changed names like all the Chromodoris sp. that are now Goniobranchis for example. I still use to get a starting point and cross check by googling the species name.

As the R7 is APS-C you can approach the range available with the WWL by adding the kenko 1.4x to the 8-15 lens As a bare lens it is usable between about 10mm to 15mm and adding a 1.4x it is still wider than the WWL at the widest setting. The horizontal fields I find are best for comparing lenses as this defines the size of subject you can fill the frame with. This table shows the calculated horzontal fields of view of the 8-15/8-15 with 1.4x/18-45 with WWL along with the approximate rectilinear equivalent focal length.

The barrel distortion in the fisheye zoom and WWL will be very close to the same at the same field of view, As you crop in by zooming the barrel distortion reduces progressively. The other point to note is I believe the WWL will have a little less depth of field at the same field of view, this was discussed on a thread on the forum recently. The 8-15 with 1.4x gives close to the same flexibility as the WWL combination, which has slightly more reach at the long end. Of course it doesn't allow adding a closeup lens.

6 hours ago, homodelphinius said:

Hi mates,

For 13 years i use the combo 8-15 with 100m dome (Aquatica) and now 140mm on Nauticam (complete switch to Nauticam with Canon R7 as Aquatica support in Europe is !$#@$).

However, i wanna more flex during science missions - mean to have wide and macro at the same time.

Thus am thinking to move to WWL II and CMC on the handy 18-45 Canon lens.

Has anybody experience on such switch?

There are various posts I recall about using the WWL in combo with a CMC. The biggest issue quoted is what to do with the big lump of a WWL when it's not mounted on the port, with some concern about the fact the lens has no way to attach a lanyard. I only recall one person saying they used the WWL/CMC combo and they thought it worked OK.

I would add that the quoted field of the the WWL is a 130deg diagonal lens, though the barrel distortion means that horizontal field which reflects what coverage you can achieve is about the same or very slightly wider than a 14mm rectilinear lens. The Horizontal field of a fisheye will be about 145 deg while the WWL will be around 105. You can go close to matching the WWL reach with the 8-15 plus 1.4x or even an adapted Tokina 10-17 but of course you can't add a CMC lens to that setup. You can focus up to the port glass and this allows you to image subjects down to about tennis ball size filling the frame reasonably well for CFWA type shots.

The CMC-1 will get you about 0.8x on the 18-45 and it only focuses between 44 and 81mm from the CMC glass, so it's not as easy to work with as a standard macro lens.

Whether it suits you likely depends somewhat which way you are leaning with the majority of the subjects you shoot. If it's mostly wide with the occasional macro or occasional wide with mainly variable sized macro. A macro lens with a wide wet lens would probably suit a wider range of macro sized subjects better than using a CMC with a kit zoom.

I don't have specific information, the tightness of fit needed will vary depending the lens in question. The problem you are likely to see if any is vignetting. The good news is you check vignetting on land, so you try out what you have to see if it will work OK for you. It looks like it is supplied with two different thread options to try to accomodate different attachment methods.

The part to mount a bayonet attachment to wet lenses is the Nauticam 83214. The backscatter page says it attaches to M67 lenses. Whether you can use it or not depends on the dimensions of the lens you are trying to mount , the thread is located further up the body of the lens on Nauticam wet lenses to get the backend of the lens closer to the port. You could try asking the vendor is the Kraken will work with this adapter?

8 hours ago, Jens H said:

Thanks Chris!

to the best of my knowledge, all camera settings for the flashes are set according to the manual of the converter.

I will conduct several test dives here in cold Austria to see how the setup behaves. Real live testing is always better than dry training...

Cheers,

Jens

let us know how you go!

5 hours ago, Grantmac said:

There is an EM1-II for $1000 in the classifieds that would offer you a massive opportunity for less than the cost of a dome.

Total bargain and still an extremely capable camera. For that you could add an adapted Canon 8-15 or Tokina 10-17 in a small dome and take it UW for less than the cost of a Nauticam housing for the Z8 or equip it with a fisheye lens and 4" dome and strobes and still be around the price of just the housing.

Yes it is spendy to take anything full frame UW, you can save a lot with a smaller sensor system and IMO it's good enough for what most people us their photos for. Most people don't go with rectilinears and big domes due to the size and hassle for travelling. You can also use less powerful strobes with smaller systems as you don't need to stop down as much. a m43 or an APS_C system would be a massive step up from a go pro for still images.

Big animals is generally WWL/WACP or fisheye territory, if you want a compact rig you can use a m43 8mm fisheye lens behind a 4" dome. If you want some flexibility for that shark that won't come close enough a WWL or one of he fisheye zoom options is worth looking at.

Looking at some options in Nauticam a Canon R7 housing is $1800 less than a Z8 housing while an OM-1 is $2800 cheaper. The domes are potentially cheaper in smaller formats depending which way you go and in m43 in particular the lenses are significantly smaller lighter and cheaper.

I'd suggest throwing together a spreadsheet and pricing up a few systems down to the lenses, domes, zoom gears and strobes in each sensor size range and seeing how you feel when comparing the prices.