Chris Ross

Probably no real advantage unless you really need the speed, but shooting wide open even in a 230mm dome is going to produce pretty horrible corners. Then there's the question about whether it plays well behind a dome and also if it will work behind a WACP-2, probably more likely to work on this optic than the WACP-1, the large front element can be the issue for these optics. The WACP-2 might be a chance as it works with the Sony 14mm f1.8.

I think for something this old that you probably need to print gears. You say zoom can sometimes can be adjusted, does that mean you have a zoom gear and it is slipping sometimes? You might be able to pack it out or otherwise adjust it so that it doesn't slip - how to do this would vary with the design of the zoom gear. If you need a zoom gear made you could try messaging on of our members @gudge as he prints zoom gears.

It seems that the N90 doesn't allow for viewfinder diopter adjustment, seems to me that is the most important thing to get sorted before attacking anything else. It uses screw in diopetr adjustment eyepieces, so you would need to source one of the correct strength, or something like this might work?

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005007792504364.html

Though if it is too thick it might not work. Is the viewfinder in focus outside of the housing? it is unclear from the attached document how the viewfinder is meant to work, does yours have an external eyepice

On the aperture ring - not sure how this is setup in the housing - when you say it can't be adjusted - is there no control for it? Are you lacking a gear? what is on the inside of the aperture control knob? is it a gear or a wheel?

If you can't solve the viewfinder it might simpler to look around for a different film camera model housing preferably one that takes "G" lenses where the aperture is adjusted electronically. Maybe an F100 or F80 ?

2 hours ago, Tino Dietsche said:

Hello everyone,

A colleague of mine is having problems with her Backscatter Mini Flash-1 and her new AOI housing for the Sony A7CII.

I know that the MF-1 can be quite finicky when it comes to fiber optics, and problems are often related to the cable. I experienced this myself with my MF-1 and the manual Nauticam Sony trigger. However, I eventually found two cables with which the MF-1 almost always worked.

My colleague is now having nothing but trouble with her new AOI housing for the Sony A7CII and the trigger. She has tried countless different fiber optic cables. Sometimes the MF-1 seems to work, and other times it doesn't. The INON flashes she still has work without any problems with all cables. The trigger is always in manual mode (WL ON).

Could it be that the older MF-1 flashes are causing even more problems with the newer triggers? It worked perfectly with a TRT trigger I had previously used in a different enclosure.

Or does anyone else have any ideas? I'm meeting with her again tomorrow and will take another look. And I think it would be best if she also asked Backscatter directly. But collective wisdom is usually even more helpful!

Thanks in advance for any feedback,

Tino

INON strobes have very sensitive fibre optic receivers, so triggering them tends to be very easy. to test you could try placing the fibre optic port directly over the trigger port on the housing. Also check the housing port by looking into it and triggering to see if seems bright or not, you could perhaps compare brightness to the TRT trigger. You say that it used to work with the TRT trigger, does it still work with that trigger? It's possible for example the LEDs are not well aligned on the housing ports.

I have a Panasonic 8mm and I used it in a Zen 100mmglass dome and didn't notice any reflections. There is no white lettering upfront which is the usual culprit with lenses causing reflections and the petals have cast in lines which are designed so that the lens sees the shaded underside of the lines. I can't see it being a problem.

Allowing water to evaporate on the glass is what causes this, the salts concentrate and it will eventually etch the glass, the same with anodizing on the housings. If you can't remove it with glass cleaner then it appears the glass has become etched. You can replace the port glass. The solution is prevention. I keep my housing covered after dives and it gets a long soak after each days diving before being dried off. I'm using a blower now from wolfbox, the high velocity blows the water off rather than letting it evaporate.

Welcome aboard Andrey, good to have you here.

33 minutes ago, crowie said:

Hope this is not too basic a question for this very technical thread - it’s been an interesting read and thank you for the time and effort many of you have put into testing these strobes. I’ve had a couple of Inon Z330’s since 2017 and one of them has started to flicker (red power on light) when I touch the power switch. So thinking it might be a good excuse to upgrade to the Retra Maxis.

I went from Z240 to a set of Retra pure strobes, which are about maybe a stop and a bit below the Pro-maxII strobes, If I recall the maxi was ahead of the Pro-MaxII by a near a stop. My strobes are certainly brighter than the Z-240s by maybe 0.7-1 stop and Z330 are probably as bright or a little brighter than my Pure strobes. The Maxi is 1.5- 1.7 stops fatter again, so comfortably faster than the Z330. I've only used up to half power with them so far, while I was half a stop below full power withe Z240 a lot of the time.

As far as light quality goes the Retra Maxi seems close to the ProMaxII (and my Pures) which is comfortably better than the Inon Z-240 for me. The Z330 I think is on par with the Z240 for light quality. The thing I did find is that with the reduction rings, with reasonable strobe positioning there is a lot less backscatter - instantly noticeable, both shooting in Lembeh and around Sydney in the temperate waters where particulates are a constant problem.

I don't have any specific recommendations, though I recall some posts around the Laowa 10mm, which while it is a very sharp lens has some perspective issues with very close objects looking un-naturally large. There's lots of posts on this lens throughout the forum with sample images and videos.

If you already have a housing for the A7SIII, then I believe you can fit the Sony A1 (version 1 ) in the same housing - not all housings but some they both fit with some minor limitations. You could potentially save buying a new housing at the cost of buying a more expensive body perhaps. This post discusses it a bit:

If it's Nauticam they sell a conversion kit:

https://www.nauticam.com/products/conversion-kit-to-convert-na-%CE%B11-for-use-with-sony-a7siii-camera

In Ningaloo, you can't scuba dive with whale sharks, they are snorkeling trips. I've seen some really bad examples of the crowds at some sites just totally swamping the sharks, here's just one example:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTk69lrgBQH/

I certainly wouldn't want to participate in something like this.

These days the need to use sRGB is less than it used to be,browsers these days have colour management by default and the blues are so much nicer in Adobe RGB. I think you should at least try it out.

I work a different workflow to many by Raw processing in Capture one and then finishing in Photoshop and I do it specifically because I can access levels as I find that the very simplest to way to colour balance a photo. Unfortunately Lightroom doesn't give you levels, you can do something similar with the tone curve though.

You don't really go into what processing steps you take - with the wrong steps it's easy to get messed up and become totally lost, You mention Calibration and HSL, I only use these sorts of tools very sparingly.

In Raw processing typically you have ability to adjust the colour temperature and Tint. Temperature is blue- yellow balance and tint is green magenta balance. It helps to have a good understanding of colour. basics are adding red reduces Cyan, adding magenta reduces green and adding blue reduces yellow. You should be able to get the balance close there. Typically I find adding some magenta to the image darkens the blues and makes them richer.

If you wanted I could try processing one of your raw files assuming of course my copy of Capture one will open it.

8 hours ago, Rich W said:

This has been annoying me for the best part of a decade so now im revisiting just thought id ask. Going back to basics after doing very limited UW photo for a few years and awaiting new housing.

How are people getting nice blue water column shots?

For reference im using Canon (RAW) and DS161 strobes (4800K colour temperature) and processing in Lightroom Classic.

Whatever default picture profile i use produces different blues but none "nice" They all tend towards green or on darker/bluer ones the saturation looks hugely excessive and the whole image has a cartoony look (im not adding any extra).

Typically shooting 1/160 to 1/250 and ISO 400 ish (any lower i cant seem to get enough strobe output. On 400 theyre 1 stop off full without diffuser. ish. subject dependent)..

Well aware of shutter speed controlling the background water brightness but this is specifically the hue and saturation i can never get correct.

WB is auto or daylight (but RAW so doesn't matter - i adjust after the event). I can get the foreground colours correct but not the ugly background.

A few examples. These are raws just spat out as jpgs with no editing hence messy look, deliberately to show what i mean.

First example the odd, saturated, fake look of the water behind. This in about 10m in indonesia. f/8 , 1/160th, iso400. Picture style "Adobe Colour"

Here the light/green hue and so on. f/8, 1/160th, iso400 @ 10mm. Nusa Penida...So its blue in reality.

Background just looks odd. Again saturation. f/8, 1/200th, iso400. Nusa Penida in about 15m

Similans somewhere.

Greeny, light blue. Not pleasing. 1/100th, f8 ISO200. Gili Air, Indonesia in 6m

Plenty of other examples. Shots deliberately not edited to show the default issues.

What are peoples workflows for a starting point "nice" blue? Ive tried standard, faithful, landscape (helps foreground, oversaturates background) with ideally Canon? What can i do to get the images less cartoony? Reduce foreground light too? "Camera Landscape" shifts towards blue but seems to over saturate at the same time.

FWIW the new "adaptive profile" run gets the water to a nice blue on most of them but its a black box. I have no idea what or how its doing it so dont like it instinctively.

Added bonus tips, less "vivid" or cartoony looking images. Which maybe lighting related.

You should have a good starting point with 4800K strobes. The idea behind warm strobe light is that to colour balance you shift to cooler colour temperatures. which gives you a deeper blue. I don't use Lightroom so can't offer anything specific there, though I would think any sort of profile designed for land use might be problematic in water. I'm not sure what the adaptive profile does, but I expect if the initial results are good it shouldn't matter - all the profile is doing is providing a starting point. I would suggest a number of things:

• Work in Adobe RGB, the blues are more extensive there, if publishing to web ensure a colour profile is included so it display properly. Don't convert to sRGB as it will crunch the blues

• Work in 16 bit colour - it gives you more latitude to work with, you can change to 8 bit when you save if you want to reduce storage space

• Have you tried camera matching options - it sets the image to what you set in camera.

• You could also try Neutral as the starting point for your own preset?

• What sort of display do you have? if it is limited to sRGB, it just can't display the deeper richer blues.

I'd also ask what settings you are using in camera any settings are typically recorded and as I understand things applied to your image as a starting point.

I'd also mention that ISO400 f8 and half power sounds like you should try to get closer, the Ikelite is quite a powerful strobe and people shoot at f11-13 regularly with similar or less powerful strobes. If you are not close enough the flash on the subject is diluted more with ambient light and the whole image needs to shift warm to get the colours you want on the foreground, but this warms up the blues.

On 3/10/2026 at 12:07 AM, Grantmac said:

You use the ring and no defuser?

I've been trying to defuse my way past the poor water conditions we get this time of year, perhaps I need to DIY some rings.

Maybe try here for a reduction ring?

Underwater Light and Magic

On 3/23/2026 at 4:04 AM, rafiqd said:

Lembeh is most likely going to be the next spot I go to, I've been starting the planning process for that and I'm getting excited for it.

I ended up buying a full macro setup with the new sony 100mm f2.8 and have been practicing more macro shots in local waters.

Here's my trip report from Divers Lodge Lembeh - they dont seem to limit dive times, you come up when you're air is down to 50 bar.

13 hours ago, Mike Saunders said:

I thought you had to have one hand on your mask for back rolls?

It's actually two, one on the front, over mask and reg and one over the mask strap. I find the my strap just peels off - a plain silicone strap.

3 hours ago, Dave_Hicks said:

Demand that they hand your camera down, don't do negative entries.

So that would be hop in positive, get your rig, grab onto RIB and dump your BCD fully and let go when everyone else rolls?

I was taught not to make my Mask strap too tight to avoid leaks, I found rolling off boats in Lembeh and other spots the strap would neatly peel off my head, mask would stay suctioned as the water was calm and I'd have to refit it! Attaching your mask somehow is probably a must if you are rolling off. Less so if you don't roll.

1 hour ago, Bapupa said:

Hey all I’m just saying what’s up. I actually stumbled across this website looking for information on a water housing for my canon EOS 1V or EOS 3 and if anyone has any information on the best route to take, to get a housing that I can get professional level image quality from. I’ve been looking in to g dome because I know the EOS 3 would at least fit, but from the photos I’ve seen people getting with them so far they seem a little soft.

Hello and welcome, suggest you post this question in the photo gear & technique forum, along with some more information about what you are trying achieve with UW photography. I had to look your cameras up - they are ancient history and finding an UW housing for them may prove a challenge. If you are set on a film SLR, perhaps try to find a second hand dive housing for any EOS model on Ebay etc.

I also had look up G dome, seems like they are mainly around surf photography. Depending on what you want to shoot there are all types of considerations depending on if you want wide angle, split shots, macro, are you scuba diving etc. For starters with a film SLR - how are you going to look through the viewfinder? - there's no facility to allow this and that seems pretty vital.

In any case let us know what you are trying to achieve and hopefully we can point you in the right direction.

Apart from a great many people from that site migrating here, the same moderators now running this site and the topic of discussion being underwater photography and videography, no relation to Wetpixel🤣🤣.

Seriously though, the wetpixel owner dropped off the face of the earth (after some members lost their payments on a dive trip that was organized by the owner) and eventually the site was only viewable by members and new member applications were not being processed. So some regulars and the mods got together and came up with waterpixels. Wetpixel is still there like a bit of a ghost ship these days.

46 minutes ago, CaolIla said:

No rush, for the price... I have a Isotta and the Zoom gear No problem I make one in 3D printing. like the other I have

In september/ october this year I travel to Tahiti... If I can have this lens... why not ( Whale, Sharks ) I all case I will also have my rectilinear WA lens and why not the 14-35 lens (No macro ;) )

I only mention Nauticam as they are often the first to publish port recommendations, neither they nor Isotta have the lens in the port charts as yet. Probably better to wait than guessing which extension you need.

7 hours ago, CaolIla said:

Thank you for this review.

I'll probaly buy this lens... but I have a little bit time before the next trip... I hope the price will go down...

Probably no rush, Nauticam haven't got it on their port charts yet - a Zoom gear sounds like it will be useful even if only zooming from 13-14mm.

14 hours ago, Cromagnon said:

The Ludd in me is escaping!!! How is it possible "to reconstruct detail that was present but not recorded?" Is the software cognizant of the world? I put forth that if you capture an image and then it is manipulated by a system you do not control, AI, to be something other than what was captured, it is adulterated and not the work of an original, therefore not your work.

Well we better not use digital imaging then, a Raw image before de-bayering is not like what you see on the screen, it constructed by the Raw converter according to the secret sauce each camera manufacturer makes which uses interpolation techniques to predict what each pixel should be. Sharpening is also out as it changes contrast around edges adding or changing brighter and darker pixels to give the appearance of a more defined edge to details in the image. Noise reduction - we are predicting what is image and what is noise.

This is the level of changes that are being made in the AI re-sizing we are talking about. when we do re-sizing of an image it is also predicting what pixels lie between the known pixels. The standard methods that we have all been using in photoshop or Lightroom use interpolation methods to fit either linearly or a curve between pixels. It does this whether you are going up or down in size. This is just a different method to accomplish this task and the AI is manly about recognizing noise and other artifacts and not magnifying them and only working with the actual subject data.

The problem we have is that we are shooting subjects where there are no straight lines and representing them with lots of little perfect squares called pixels. This brings all sorts of problems like interference patterns, moire and avoiding jagged edges that should be smooth and throw into the mix noise which we need to separate from from the image data. Like it or not this involves computations and predictions that are used to convert all the ones and zeroes into something that is aesthetically pleasing. All of these tools are about dealing with limitations of the sensor and various artifacts that the technology creates.

I don't hold with this idea of the purity of a straight out of the camera image, this is just Canon or Nikon's interpretation of what processing should be done to the image rather than my interpretation of the image and the processing needed to achieve this. Film is really no different - it's just the film manufacturers secret sauce applied in an analogue situation rather than digital. I'm not talking about cloning and adding things to images - just enhancing what the camera has recorded and dealing with all the noise and other issues in the data.

I'm a complete luddite when it comes to the AI that's booming around the place right now ( quite likely a big bubble getting ready to burst) and I don't use any of it. The task specific AI like this is a different story though, it has a definite purpose and the business model is relatively sound with development paid for by licensing fees.

4 hours ago, Grantmac said:

Is AI upscaling actually your images though? I tend to believe it's not.

Why would believe it's not your image? This is not the AI that will make an image or video for you based on a description, rather it's a specialized software designed to reconstruct detail that was present but not recorded and it's trained pairs of low and high resolution images to help make the predictions. It basically works out how to draw lines between your existing pixels rather than using a straight line or fitted curve that is used in standard upscaling. It's true it predicts the small details from upscaling but the lighting and composition is still your image, I tend to think of it as improving appearance of fine details that get lost in artifacts from standard methods of upscaling.

5 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

 

Long version: I had no issues or challenges using this lens. It is.. maybe 5mm shorter when on the body compared to the 8-15 so I just ended up using the 30mm extension that I do for the EF version. Marelux and Nauticam space their housings differently…so a nauticam user may want to go to do something different...? I didn’t find any sort of weird problems with it being 14 instead of 15 in the dome, I did not remove the dome shade and it seemed like I could maybe zoom out to 13 without getting any vignetting on the full frame sensor… but I didn’t try (since I taped it and there isn’t a zoom gear for it anyway…yet). For this dive I turned off all non-essential stabilization (still IBIS) so had zero crop on the full frame sensor.

 

Certainly seems to produce some nice pics. Regarding extension at 7mm with the 190° field, the lens would need to move forward to avoid vignetting quite likely. Reading the various review articles they mention that a full field is achieved at 13mm (the 8-15 achieves this at 15mm) and one claims it zooms in a little tighter after this. If this is the case it may be why there was no vignetting. It would be interesting to compare the field between the 8-15 and the 7-14mm. If the focal lengths are correct the 7-14 should have a slightly wider field, but this assume they have the same projection type.

Edit:

this link includes a video review where the 7-14 and 8-15 are compared and the field of view of the 7-14 is demonstrated. It is stated that you 180° diagonal field at 13mm and at 14mm it zooms in slightly tighter. It also states that the projection type has changed from Equi-solid angle to Equidistant, which will be why the the full 180° is achieved at a shorter focal length than the 8-15. Also note that placing the 8-15 on its adapter it is about the same total length as the 8-15. Also as I recall the 8-15 has a diagonal field of about 175° at 15mm.

https://fstoppers.com/reviews/canon-rf-7-14mm-f28-35-l-fisheye-stm-real-trick-zoom-900077

Regarding using a 1.4x with the lens if it were possible, this lens would give less reach than the old 8-15, this table compares fields of view between the 2, assuming fields as stated in the video, however the full frame diagonal view is significantly wider:

11 hours ago, Hugh said:

Sorry, if not clear, the M27 port appears to be Bayonet Only. I want to keep using the nauticam dual Flip I recently acquired with the MFO-3 and SMC-3. I like how it works with my existing video system.

I've become greedy and want to shoot video and take photos on same dive. (Will include strobes)

I own a S1R2 and its a great camera. I was hoping there might be other Panasonic users on here given the S series cameras are very similar.

Will check with a dealer.

Give Peter Mooney a call at Scubapix, he's the Aussie distributor.

The fact that the bad strobe can be triggered with a different source tends to indicate it has having problems detecting the pulse from your trigger.

You can try running a fibre cable from your good strobe to the the dodgy one. Plug the cable into the side socket on the good strobe and run it to the dodgy one in the normal fibre port. See page e-22 of the manual for how to. The dodgy strobe should be the one on the LHS of the diagram. Here's an e-link to the manual if you need it: https://www.seaandsea.jp/support/download/manual/manual_en_03123_ys-d3_lightning.pdf

Now check if it triggers. If it does check the exposure from each strobe and make sure the dodgy strobe changes brightness as you change the power on it. If it does, this is your solution, possibly not ideal but should sort you out at least till you come back and can try to get to the bottom of it. It might be that you fibre cables are marginal for this strobe. You could try borrowing another cable to test if things improve with it or not. Fibre optic problems are relatively common and not all cables are created equal and a bad cable can be the difference between triggering or not (yes even though the other strobe is happily firing). What brand cables are you using?

If it doesn't trigger using the method above, nothing will trigger the strobe as you are using the main flash to trigger the other strobe.

Regarding whether the dodgy strobe is fried, never assume when troubleshooting, test your assumptions with tests that can determine what is going on.