Chris Ross

It's also a big lens which you would have fit from the front of the housing with the N85 port system I would expect, probably need an expensive N85-N120 adapter and N120 dome as well.

I would hope ISO3200 would be perfectly usable on a full frame Sony, as long as it's well exposed, I've shot in rainforests using much older equipment at ISO 3200 (the old 1D MkIV ) and as long as I didn't pull the shadows up too much results were quite good. Stretching out you shutter speed should also help, limited by subject movement rather than the diver. This image was shot at 1/100 f7.1 ISO3200 on the 1D mKIV and is cropped a bit: https://www.aus-natural.com/Ecuador/Hummingbirds/slides/Gorgeted Sun Angel.html Underwater the even expanse of dark water is more prone to noticable noise but also easier to process it out. The Sony A7RV should be at least two stops better on noise.

It's not that you can't shoot the 16-35 wide, more if you would want to. Well if you are shooting wide open the 16-35 has an advantage for sure, but a rectilinear in a dome has major edge issues at f2.8, so it depends if there's anything important there. If you were happy with 16-35 at f2.8 then the WWL combo at f4 should be a little better on the edges. But basically means with the WWL you would need to shoot 1 stop higher ISO or one stop slower shutter speed compared to the 16-35. You didn't say what ISO you were shooting, if you believe DXOmark, the noise performance of the RII and RV are very close, the RV has an edge in dynamic range but only at low ISO and the two cameras are quite close beyond ISO1600. Noise should all be in the dark water (mostly) so processing to clean that up selectively should be possible.

The WWL has slightly wider coverage compared to a 16-35, something like the same horizontal field as a 14mm rectilinear, but the advantage for low light is you don't need to stop down as much with the WWL where you should be able to shoot at f5.6 or so. I imagine corners will be dark water though - what f-stop did you use with the 16-35 previously?

It will want to float with the LH handle (with both floats) upwards, but there's not much buoyancy in 4 stix floats. 4 large floats is +320gr while the strobe is -150gr. So with 2 on one side it's +170 gr on the left. In the configuration with two floats on each side it's -150+160 = 10gr positive. while the RHS is +160gr a difference of 150 gr more bouyancy on the RH than the LH side. So the unbalance from side to side is very close in both configurations, a difference of 20 grams. On the balls perhaps change all the o-rings to be the same type if they are not already. I would also add that the float each side configuration might need something to keep th floats from floating off the bare of the arm, it's only a push fit as shown in the photo. on a single strobe, should be fine for macro, but probably will struggle for wide angle shots with the mini strobe. Two of them is probably just adequate for WA

The image will either be sRGB or Adobe RGB, whether you want to use one or the other as I said is down to how the images will be used. If you are using the Lightroom, you can keep the Master image in AdobeRGB and export in sRGB, once you have produced an sRGB image there's no going back on that file. I also don't believe you need to have two different calibrations for your monitors, a monitor calibrated in AdobeRGB will render an sRGB image just fine, it just doesn't use all the colour space it is capable of. If you want to work in sRGB to avoid the change when the image is converted just start your processing in sRGB. I think it's approaching the time when publishing in Adobe RGB will work for many people. If you entering competitions then I would certainly want to work in AdobeRGB and also if ever you were printing on a high end inkjet printer, their colour gamut is certainly bigger than sRGB and you would be missing out on those extra colours. When you are working in lightroom, the raw image doesn't have a colour space and tell it what colour space to use when you start the processing. You can then process and export the image and the conversion to sRGB can be done then. I use Photoshop which is a little different so I keep a full resolution Adobe RGB master and make a web version in sRGB.

The basic problem with sRGB is that is a smaller colour space than others available, it was built around what CRT monitors could do at the time. The problem I see regularly when processing and converting to sRGB to produce a web version is that the blues in reef shots go off. You can remedy this a bit using the selective colour tool in photoshop adding a lot of cyan to the blues and playing with magenta in cyans and blues but it's not perfect. Don't know if LR has a similar tool. The reason for converting to sRGB is solely due to the default behaviour of browsers when serving the image - if colour management is not enabled they assume the image is sRGB and if you post for example an Adobe RGB image if does weird things to the colours. I'm not sure what the current situation with browsers is, a few years ago it was a bit of a mess, I think most browsers are now colour managed, but necessarily on by default. what to do? depends on what you are doing with your images! If posting to Facebook, to some extent it doesn't matter as FB strips profiles and re-processes the image to it's own profile(saves a few kB of storage - a lot spread over millions of images). Instagram probably does something similar. You could save in adobe RGB and I think nowadays Chrome, Edge and Firefox and possibly Safari will render that correctly. Adobe RGB is a good choice I think as a great many monitors can display that these days. Going on percentages I would guess 95% of people will see a correctly rendered image on their setup these days if it's in Adobe RGB (ignoring the gamut their monitor is capable of) . There would not be many people on older versions as Windows forces updates on most people and Edge updates along with it. Plus among non-photographers most probably won't notice the colours being off a bit.

If the Tokina 10-17 is working for you it won't transfer across to the new Nikon mirrorless bodies and you would be looking at either a WWL option or 8-15 fisheye to replace it - but you don't get the full fisheye view with the WWL and I have seen the opinion expressed on here that the WWL is not a substitute for for fisheye for reef scenics. You could use the Nikon 8-15, but that's only a full frame fisheye at 15mm, you could add a 1.4x and use the lens between about 15mm and 21mm equivalent focal length , but it won't have the reach of the 17mm end of the the 10-17 which gets to 25.5 mm FF equivalent. All this will work behind either the Nauticam 140mm dome or the Zen 100mm dome, with the Nauticam having slightly better corners. I don't know if you plan to get a new Nauticam housing or look second hand for the Z6? You could save some money and get a physically smaller housing with Isotta. I know a local Sydney photographer who went with Isotta for a Z6 for this reason, the housing is significantly smaller. You can use your Nauticam ports on Isotta housings by changing the lug ring. For the fisheye I don't think the Zen dome is an option as it doesn't have a removable lug ring if I recall correctly, but Isotta offer a 4.5"crystal dome. If you want to emulate the 10-17 the only budget way to do it is with a DX - aPS-C body and currently with Nikon that would mean a Z50 and Isotta don't have a housing and a Nauticam one is a fairly pricey. A d500 is a fine camera still and a possibility or you could go to smaller formats - I'm more than happy with my OM-1 housing and the image quality is a close match for the d500 sensor - you could adapt a Canon 8-15 to it or use the straight fisheye and add mid range zoom if needed.

Edward stated that their engineers are working on measuring data with various camera lenses and it will be uploaded soon. I would think this data will appear in the port charts, by the time the new lens is released and give a very good idea on what to expect for individual lenses. Reduced hunting would certainly be welcome.

Welcome aboard!

The MWL won't help much, it is suggested to use f16 with that lens and it is said to be marginal at f13. You are going to have soft edges at f8 on any lens behind a dome unless it is zoomed in quite a bit, perhaps 35mm full frame equivalent or narrower. The standard recommendation if you want to shoot wide apertures would be a WACP for EF but this is big and expensive. Fisheye lenses may be an option but not so suitable for video. A Canon 10-17 with 1.4x would approximate a WWL field of view with reduced barrel distortion due to the 1.4x converter, but you would be needing to shoot that at f6.3-8 range as well.

I found this image on Alex tattersall's FB page: Seems like there might also be an MFO-2, the Orange one, click the link below to the page: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/4zBDkhjCYwNzDXc9/ THere is also an image taken with it here on the Nauticam France FB page: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/N1xMdPnShvxwjES7/

It seems to be saying it gives you more working distance when using something like an SMC-1 on a 100mm macro lens. Perhaps need to wait for it to appear in the port chart to see what sort of changes it will make.

Hi Mick, it appears they can be used on SOME full frame sensors. There are reports on other threads here where it is claimed the CMC lenses don't perform well on some full frame sensors. Note that the Canon 60mm macro is an APS-C lens while the Nikon is a full frame lens. It has been discussed that the high power diopters like the SMC-1 are perhaps not the most useful lenses and that lower power lens that allow a touch more magnification than 1:1 will find many more suitable subjects. Depends on where you are diving and what critters you want to target of course, but finding subjects for a lens combo achieving 2x+ magnification requires good spotting skills on the right dive site, preferably with an eagle eyed guide (at least for me)

The system Nauticam uses to indicate how much magnification you will get I find somewhat confusing, the port charts are the thing to use, though of course they only list the SMC diopter for the Sony 90mm macro. However if you look at the Canon EF chart they list the SMC-1 and the CMC-2 as options for the Canon 60mm macro: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mJfA13gju8n8D_521gaxBbgK05-oeUJ9/view You'll see the CMC-2 has the same magnification on the Canon 60mm as the SMC-1 but the CMC-2 has more working distance. If you look at the Nikon 60mm macro they list the CMC lenses but it has much less working distance than the the same diopter on the Canon 60mm lens. Directionally you would expect that the CMC-2 would give you more working distance but whether or not it's significant, you would need to try it out. If you are looking for more working distance it has been reported that the the INON closeup lenses have a little more working distance than the Nauticam lenses but again not quantified. The magnification of the SMC-1 on 90mm macro and the working distance can be found here in the Sony port chart: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M8EI7QYspv5jS0XruR2_F6BR6-Kz-HDj/view The other issue is how well the CMC plays with the 90mm, there are some reports the corners are not as good on the CMC lenses as they are designed for for smaller sensors, but they are recommended on full frame by Nauticam for some applications like the 60mm macro lenses.

Both ends of the system are important. If you are using a camera with a pre-flash, best solution is to use manual low power flash on the camera. If you can't turn the pre-flash off you need a setting on your flash that ignores the pre-flash. Try triggering the flashes from Olympus camera with the YS-D2 on manual and the Olympus camera set to manual flash at 1/64 power using the little accesory flash. The key point to remember is that the camera and flash are not aware of each other so both need to be set correctly.

A likely cause at high power is a pre-flash using enough capacitor capacity to prevent the strobe discharging. The devil is in the detail of the settings you are using.

Yes but this can only happen if there is water inside to vapourise. Heat causes water to evaporate, not condense. If it was just humidity then you would expect fogging when it was already cold.

If you are using a RX-100, you would be shooting wider apertures about f5.6 max so your strobes have an easier time of it. F5.6 on a 1" sensor has equivalent depth of field to about f16 on full frame . Stopping down further just sends you into diffraction. If it were me I'd get a second S-220.

Air from a scuba tank is very dry and if you blow some in as you seal up it will help. Have a clean lint free microfibre cloth to wipe drops from the o-ring when you open it to stop them getting in the housing. Closing it up in the coldest air will have the lowest moisture content. If the air temperature is less than the water temperature the housing won't fog as long as long as no liquid water is trapped. The key is that cold air holds less moisture than warmer air before it starts to condense. Leaving the housing in the sun only causes a problem if there are liquid water drops inside - trapped by the o-ring.

I suspect the wetlenses would be fine, the WFL-01 says it's designed for the m43 sensor. The DS-51 strobes are wire triggered as I understand it you would need to ask how they are triggering the strobes. The AOI EPL-10 housing has a built in LED trigger and to use this you would need a optical to electronic trigger converter. The LED trigger in the EPL-10 housing is manual only if I recall correctly and the design of the housing would make it difficult to use a third party trigger to get TTL. So with this setup you take the electric signal ex the hot shoe convert it to optical with the LED trigger then have the opto-electric converter turn it back into an electrical signal. You need to maintain both these items plus the o-rings on the trigger cables. If you definitely wanted TTL you might have to look into a housing for an EM-5 III, OM-5 or similar. The AOI housings for those use the small accessory flash that comes with the camera to trigger and that is capable of TTL. AOI OM system housings are here: https://www.aoi-uw.com/products/housings.html the AOI housings don't have a optical viewfinder installed and you need to use the Rear LED monitor. On the topic of viewfinders, for many years I used the standard viewfinder in my Nauticam housing, you needed it right up against your mask but it was usable and you could tell if the camera had grabbed focus generally.

You could try the DHL shipment planner, you need to create an account , but I tried it and it seemed straight forward: https://mygts.dhl.com/pre-shipment-planner You need a HS code to determine what it is, I found this: https://www.tariffnumber.com/2024/90066100 the US and European codes are similar, just read the sub type descriptions. Give it a go and see what it comes up with.

The two main suppliers of TTL triggers are UWT and Turtle, the trigger needs to be made to be compatible with the camera body and it needs to be able to communicate properly with the chosen flash. Once this is done it needs to be adapted to the housing the considerations there are fitting the LEDs to trigger ports of the housing and mounting the trigger. Basically if the triggers are working for your camera body/flash combination the only additional criteria is if the supplier has engineered a good fit to install the trigger and the LEDs. The triggers in question have been widely discussed in the forum I believe from both of these suppliers for Sony, getting it working properly with the Backscatter flash will take time for the vendors to develop their protocols to work with the new flash. I would message the vendors where they are with supporting the new flash, both Pavel from UWT and Balage from Turtle are on the forum so you could PM them to ask.

All true, however if you enter the species from these outdated books into Google, it will often point you to the new name. The Facebook groups are very good, though there are many entries that are ignored in my experience. The experts do a good job on there , but it's not like they are getting paid. In a great many cases of re-classification the specific name (second part of name) remains the same (apart from gender changes due to it being in Latin) but the generic name (first part of name) changes indicating placement into a different genera . For example the Australian slug Chromodoris splendida became Goniobranchus splendidus. If you google the first name the first entry popping up for me is the new name. I have heard though that some of the names in the Kuiter and Debelius book are just completely wrong. Then of course you will find some slugs that are completely un-described. The Seaslug forum site is full of old names but to me is still quite useful as it has a great many images so you can thee variations within the same species.

I find the photons to photos site difficult to use, getting a clear explanation of what the various plots are showing is not the easiest. Having said this maybe this plot shows the shadow improvement capability of the GH7 better: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5,Panasonic Lumix DC-GH7,Sony ILCE-1,Sony ILCE-7RM5 I threw a couple of Sony cameras on for comparison, I think ILCE-1 is an A-1? The GH-7 seems to do very well at getting shadow improvement if this chart is showing what I think it is. and.......having said all that just how much value is extra dynamic range anyway? Apart from sunballs most UW photos have a pretty low dynamic range and the first thing I do in processing is set levels and increase contrast.