Chris Ross

Most remotes for flashes use either cable, radio signals or optical signals. I would think that radio signals would have trouble getting out of the housing and penetration through water would be limited. How do you plan to trigger the flash? It looks like the camera has a multi interface shoe so you should be able to attach a flash trigger. You would need a trigger with a longer cord for the LEDs and you could probably mount them to the inside of the viewfinder window and stick a port on the outside to attach a fibre optic cable. Most important you need enough space inside to mount the trigger. I suspect you would need to mount the trigger in the back half so you could attach the LED to the rear window - probably using double sided tape. The hotshoe cable would also need to be long enough so you could fit it to the hotshoe when assembling the housing. You might try contacting Turtle and UWT for advice? Otherwise I believe you can get an M14 or M16 fibre optic port and you would need to drill and tap a hole to instal it. You could always email Gates to ask for advice?

You need the N85-N120 34.7mm adapter then 35mm extension then 140mm port. If you have the 4.33"port and it's an N120 already you can use that instead, believe the extension is the same. You need a 3D printed part to adapt the Canon 8-15 zoom ring as the 34.7 adapter is designed to use with the Metabones speed booster which is 5mm thinner. You use the focus knob on the adapter to zoom rather than the housing zoom knob, so you basically can't use both. You can also use the Tokina 10-17 with the speed booster, all equipment is the same except I think it's the 30mm extension and you just use the zoom gear directly. It's all in this thread: https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/61629-canon-ef-lenses-on-mft-cameras/page/4/&tab=comments#comment-446983 I think the 8mm FE is pretty much equivalent to the 8-15 at 8mm, the advantage is the zoom giving you reach so you can shoot smaller CFWA subjects and shoot shy pelagics that don't come close enough. Also means you can for example shoot a hawkfish sitting on a coral from a bit further back. For me it means I can leave the dome for the 7-14 at home and just shoot with this combination.

Thanks to all who have signed up for the support of the new forum

I recently acquired a Canon 8-15 fisheye. Calculations show it covers the range from full frame fisheye to 28mm FF equivalent, albeit with barrel distortion the whole way - a pretty handy range. To visualise this I took a series on indoor shots at medium (1.8m ) and CFWA distances with the 8-15 and a 7-14 rectlinear. What we are covering here is reach - a rectilinear has quite different look to a fisheye as we will see and I'm not claiming the rectilinear and fisheye lenses are interchangeable for all subjects. First up shots taken through a standard door (about 2.1m high) from a distance of 1.8m. This is at 7mm/8mm, you can see the door is rendered about the same size even though the field of view in frame is much wider due to barrel distortion of the fisheye. Next up zoomed in to 14/15mm. You can see again the door frame is about same size in each shot - this time with similar angle of view. Next some CFWA style images with the bag about 220mm from the sensor at 8/7mm, You can see the bag is rendered larger although the field of view is much wider in the fisheye: Now with the lens zoomed in, this is about the close focus limit for the 7-14, the fisheye can go a lot closer though yielding larger subject size. Again you see the subject rendered significantly larger with the fisheye and actually covers a smaller field - 110mm for the fisheye and 160mm for the rectilinear lens. This means the 8-15 replaces my 8mm fisheye and my 7-14mm Panasonic lens. The distant frames show what you might expect when for example trying to shoot sharks and other large animals where you can't quite get close enough with just the fisheye and the second set of images shows what you might achieve in CFWA shots and shows the advantage of using the fisheye. The door shows how the barrel distortion is reduced middle of the frame but is makes the door look fatter - this is the fisheye effect which brings your chosen subject, be it a shark or sea fan forward in the frame and more prominent. It looks like this will be a very flexible combination and means I can effectively travel with this setup and just the one lens and dome if I'm expecting to shoot large pelagics as well as reefscape shots and CFWA. and perhaps just add a macro lens/port. I'm using this on m43 olympus and you can do similar with APS-C and Tokina 10-17, full frame however needs the new Fisheye Conversion port. I picked up the lens and N85-120 adapter locally just need to find a 140mm dome and 35mm extension before my next trip.😃

There was a post asking a similar question possibly for a similar port a few weeks back, The response was that the port now comes with a blanking plug and there are instructions for installing it. I found what seems to be a universal instruction set for various focus knobs and their installation - this is for extension rings. It should be easy to work out if it applies to your port if you have one. https://www.panoceanphoto.com/factsheets/NA22131_Focus Knob Bedienungsanleitung Nauticam-en.pdf

This is linked to readout speed and while review is not specific there is no mention of a sensor changeand I think burst rate is the same.

Hi Wolfgang, Perhaps you could also link to the Canon 8-15 adapter to use the focus gear on m43?

From DP review: "Beyond this, the handling of the camera is almost identical to that of the original camera. We say 'almost' because OMDS has changed the camera's command dial to one with a rubbery coating. These offer an improved tactile feel and also make the camera a little easier to operate when using gloves." which sounds promising. The AF of the EM-1 II was indeed a big step up and the OM-1 is a bit better again. It does depend on the lens in use, The Panasonic 30mm macro for example is snappier than the olympus 60mm. I've not tried it in black water but the EM-1 II locked onto mating Mandarin fish at dusk 'without using a focus light using the 12-40 zoom. The light was really quite dim.

OM Systems has announced the OM-1 MkII. It's a evolution rather than revolution it seems and the main upgrade is more RAM to enhance computational photography. They talk about improved AF, C-AF plus tracking, human detection mode and improved subject tracking plus upgraded image stabilisation. It is now branded OM-System rather than Olympus. For UW photgraphy one new item which might be worth trying out is the built-in graduated ND filter function which might help out with split shots - how well it does depends on how they implement the setup I would guess and how quickly it can take the required frames, flash recycle times could be an issue. It also is said to use the same body withonly a change to to mode dial giving it a rubberised coating which may bode well for using the same housing? I'm wondering if part of the motivation releasing a new model 2 years out might have been the need to stop using Olympus branding? An initial review is up online here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-1-mark-ii-initial-review Also for UW shooters there is a new 9-18mm lens as well, could be a compact rectilinear option, don't see any details on what has changed in it though. The old one wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Guys, it is not the vacuum - pulling more vacuum and diving deeper are exactly the same thing, all that matters is the differential pressure. Slightly less air in the housing doesn't mean a thing. Do you want to do 100 dives without using vacuum to attempt to eliminate it as an issue - that's what would be required. There's no mechanism that vacuum impacts apart from buttons and diving deeper has the same impact. You are assuming that because the shutter works it can't be a button problem _ I would suggest that you should never assume. If you you are going to solve a problem like this you need to systematic about trying to repeat the problem. I would suggest going through and trying each button in turn to see if it stops the flash firing. If the button stops the shutter releasing it's not the problem logically as the shutter works when this issue appears. Once you've done that it is ruled out or you have a potential cause. I agree the contacts look good, but the experience is they are unreliable and I can see why this might be the case. Just to confirm that you routinely test fire before every dive to confirm that the flash fires. You say you do this at home - do you do on the boat? I would suggest developing a routine to test fire strobes before you jump and before you submerge. You said that the board of the UWT trigger was replaced, did you also replace the hotshoe cable with it? Another thing to check - can you twist the hotshoe connector in the hotshoe. I have little mini flashes for my olympus cameras and one of them allowed the connector to twist in the shoe, so it would lose contact sometimes. I marked that one and don't use it in the housing any more. That should of course stop it working till re-inserted but worth checking. I didn't realise Sony used a system like that for hotshoe communication to me that would go on the "Con" list for using in an UW housing. Seems like a problem waiting to happen.

The RAW file is the same it's just closer to ideal if you get it right in camera as the IP program will generally use those settings as a preset to show a starting point. Flash though is different to ambient light and far as I am aware the default for the camera is to assume flash light is 5500K which generally works reasonably well as long as flash light dominates. It is generally better to do your processing in 16 bit as well as it is less likely to pixelate if the adjustments are more extreme. Where manual WB makes a difference is in video it's kind of like getting it very close in camera as each frame is not like a raw frame for many cameras, it's more like a JPEG and the latitude for adjustment is limited compared to what you are used to in raw shooting.

Ideally check the dimension of the 110 port from someone that owns one first it should be about 119-120 from inside of glass to end of lugs.

You might be able to use a 50mm extension with what you have now for 80mm macro, as I understand it the lengths are additive, so 30+32+50 = 112mm. For example the inside of the glass on my N85 macro port 45 is pretty close to 45mm from the flange as measured with a ruler. Luckily with the olympus the 30mm Pany and the Oly 12-40 are both very quick to focus - compared to the 60mm macro I use the most. These days the 12-40 is as close as I get to multi purpose, I'm either macro diving or I'm not.

Yes the impact of the diopters are different when you are not focusing down at 1:1, possibly some focus breathing going on and the diopter works better with longer focal length. But it still won't provide more magnification than with the lens alone. I'm not clear though you said you had vignetting using the CMCs with your current port, are you not getting vignetting on land with your current setup or are you using a different combination here? I have actually played around with the Panasonic 30mm macro on my Olympus setup when I wanted slightly wider view for weedies etc around home, but ended up drifting back to the 12-40 olympus lens, which can achieve 0.3x, as I could achieve 95% of the same results plus had better wide views . The small stuff was just too small for the 30mm for my usage and always somewhere were you couldn't get in close enough with various sponges etc in the way, or the subject was mobile and would leave. I rarely use it these days.

Theoretically, but practically the setpoint is equivalent to about 2m depth and the efficiency of the hand pumps is pretty low so I don't think you can get too much lower is pressure.

Yes, but there is inward pressure on all of the buttons underwater and if one of the clearances is a bit tight it might be enough to activate a button. The fact it worked again in the housing before re-opening it tends to indicate a problem caused by external pressure and you said you had replaced the trigger once, which tends to indicate a problem somewhere other than the trigger. It also possible that the camera is not sitting on the camera plate right and you may sometimes have the camera sitting a little further back. You could try to test it by setting the camera up in the housing and taking shots with each of the buttons on back of the camera pressed in turn and checking to see if the trigger fires each time. This might identify a button to check further. The fact it happens so occasionally is of course going to make finding the cause difficult.

I dived out at Catalina island on a boat organised by Bluewater photo a few years back. As I was flying in, I asked about tanks and weights and it seemed like it was a difficult problem to hire them and they ended up organising one of their staff loan me a tank and weights. That may be because I was dealing with Bluewater rather than a dive shop? The boat I was on did tank fills (incl nitrox) on the boat. The boats seem to go out of San Pedro near Long Beach. The boats are separate operations to the dive shops. I expect if you emailed one of the dive shops in this area they could help you out with what you need to hire and booking onto a boat. On the boat I was on I needed cash to pay for Nitrox (and tips for the crew). If I recall correctly the boat trip included air fills and breakfast/lunch. This shop is closeby to the San Pedro harbour and has trips out to Catalina on its schedule: https://pacificwilderness.com/?page_id=521 I've not used them but they are close to where the boats leave from. I went in August and was lucky to have really nice conditions water varied from 20°C at some sites to 16°C at another.

So when it quits is it out the whole dive? Or does it come back again? Does surfacing fix it, or do you have to open the case? I'm guessing on each occasion it failed that you tested it on the surface first and it stopped when you submerged? My initial thought is perhaps the housing is marginally pressing a button which prevents the flash firing. I would think that it has nothing to do with water - just the pressure. Either that or it is random and you use it underwater much more often than on dry land?

Unfortunately the short working distance means that a wet lens won't help you out. Closeup diopters work by allowing you to focus closer than the lens already focuses so you are losing working distance. You can calculate working distance at min focus from the specifications and the bare lens has about 12mm or working distance at 1:1 - when you add in a port 1:1 is about touching the port glass. Best you can do is get a close fitting port for the lens.

You probably won't find anything at the price of the FM7 in Singapore. It's quite an expensive place. I travel there quite a bit for work but the hotels I use would probably be a bit too pricey for what you want. Likewise food can be expensive, but the hawker centres and food courts can provide great food at reasonable prices even in the tourist areas. You can be in downtown SIngapore in your hotel within a little over an hour from landing and a taxi to Orchard road is around $S30 or so and getting around when you are there via MRT is quite easy. Just be aware there are some taxis that don't take credit cards - the guy at the taxi queue will ask you. You probably don't want to take the MRT from the airport if you have a lot of luggage, they can get quite crowded.

Good to have you here Pavel. welcome onboard.

Welcome aboard Chris, good to have you here.

welcome aboard!

A little bit apples and oranges comparing the 15-30 (f4.5-6.3 IS STM) to other options you mention. It's in the port chart as an option for an APS-C sensor where it gives the full expected range between 18 and 30mm focal length. It's not on the port chart for full frame, but guess that it would work on Full frame but between 28 and 30mm only.

You should be able to avoid this tax when travelling domestically assuming the airport is setup with a domestic arrivals channel where you don't fill out a customs form and don't pass through customs. It's not clear from the airport terminal maps how this works for domestic arrivals as it mentions some international flights arrive at SJD terminal 1 and the map shows customs areas. It seems to me to be a somewhat legitimate tax, but the rules to apply it are being bent, for example classifying a housing as a camera. The arrival card mentions you can bring in two cameras. Then there is also stuff about higher value items on the arrivals card. In theory most countries could apply this to incoming tourists as the vast majority are arriving with goods such as laptops, devices etc that would exceed the duty free import allowance, but they also depart the country with those goods. It is most likely a local official making a name for himself or funding an early retirement scheme. Certainly if you are coming back to your home country with brand new equipment to your home country you would be charged local taxes and duties. If you do get charged taxes on your housing in Mexico you should request that they provide a receipt and include serial numbers as it can only be legitimately be charged once. The other option which might be worthwhile if travelling with particularly valuable equipment is a carnet.