Chris Ross

I'm aware of that issue, I have a Metabones adapter already and it has already been ground down which allows me to attach it to the camera. 5 minutes with a dremel style tool and touch is up with a black permanent marker.

Whatever you are doing in the way of a custom white balance or shooting a grey card for later reference it is important to have the neutral object photographed in the same light as the subject and if you are using a strobe or a video light it needs to be at the same distance. So for a TG-6 a small grey/white card you can photograph is probably better than fins as you can easily shoot it from much closer.

I had a look at that ad as I'm thinking of going that way eventually and your asking price is already more than the price of a new one in Australia by $120, looks like the asking prices for Nauticam gear in the UK are particularly steep!

Perhaps they will replace it with an adapter setup for the smart adapter rather than the speedbooster??

I've pointed to them on the reef and received only shoulder shrugs in response, even signalled I'm now pointing to the eye and it didn't help.

Polishing inside the dome can be fraught with difficulties as even if you can reach randomising your strokes may prove difficult and each grade would need to move beyond the area you worked with previous grade. It should be possible to pop out the dome element they are usually sealed with o-rings and it may be easier to work on? Replacement elements are not super expensive, for example and 8.5"dome port replacement element is 240 euro compared to 725 for a new dome at this site: https://fotografit.eu/products/28-nauticam-ports-n120/5241-85-acrylic-dome-replacement-with-o-ring/ Many years ago I bought the copper hill kit, which consisted of plastic paddles and a pack of Pec-Pads. You should be fine provided you have kept you Pec-Pads in a dust tight bag - NOT sitting out on you office bench, the only concern is having grit hitch a ride. The kit I had recommended 2 drops of fluid. For your streaks I think 3-4 drops should not be a problem.

Welcome onboard,

welcome onboard!

Really nice video, well done. I must agree though being familiar with where certain critters hang out is a big help, many of them are extremely site faithful.

In Australia we call them anglerfish, seems more appropriate for a fish that uses a lure to catch other fish. The Red Fingered Anglerfish is endemic to the coast around Sydney and also reported form Jervis Bay to the south, they are maddeningly hard to find with amazing camouflage. They come in 3 colour morphs, orange, grey and white with white being quite uncommon. Here's a white on from a dive on the weekend. You can see the red fingers on the pectoral fin on the RHS of frame.

The MWL requires to stop down to f16 to be at it's best on full frame, I'm not sure if this is required with the smaller sensors and I have seen no reports of people using it on m43 to confirm if this is needed or not. F16 of course is well into diffraction on a m43 and needs powerful strobes to provide enough light. It is the smallest and most compact option but it's heavy As for the WWL, I don't believe either variety is usable on a flip holder they are big pieces of gear and even with flotation collars have some weight UW. In theory you can remove them while UW, but in practice you probably don't want to, I know that at least one person responded to a similar query saying they didn't think it was a problem, but it's a big piece, 150mm diameter and apart from the original WWL-1 they don't have a lanyard attachment point. You could remove the lens and place it on a bayonet on a flash arm - but it's a big lump and will limit your ability to position the arm. It's also too big for many pockets. The next issue is mounting the WWL - presumably you have the dedicated Nauticam 12-50 port, this will require the dedicated M77 to bayonet adapter and presumably as this introduces extra spacing the port charts tells you that the WWL-C field of view is only 110° as you need to zoom into 15mm to remove the vignette. With only 110° field you might as well use something like an INON UWL-H100. The other thing to consider is that while it is not a fisheye, it is also not a rectilinear view so has significant barrel distortion. I really feel you are probably best to try a different lens to use with a WWL perhaps a Panasonic 12-32 with a WWL-C? The MWL in theory is a good option but has not been that popular with full frame and I have not heard of anyone using it on m43, there is probably a reason for that.

The dust loupe and brush products are certainly useful but won't help with streaking, that is due to oils getting on the sensor surface, which is a different problem. I think what is needed is repeated swabs until eventually it picks up whatever substance is on the surface, more fluid will certainly help a little as the fluid mixes with the contaminant, some is absorbed but the rest stays with the fluid on the surface and the fluid evaporates leaving the contaminant behind. . Eventually it is mopped up. Just don't want to flood the sensor when you are doing so maybe just a drop or two more. Since using Olympus though, the problems with dust seem non existent, the sensor cleaning cycles seem to work really well.

I agree order yourself a pack of Pec_pads, They come in a big pack, just keep the open pack inside a clean zip lock to keep contaminants away. I think there's a lot of myth and legend around sensor ceaning, yes its delicate but the need for single use clean room grade swabs at multiple $$$ each is debatable. Probably the most important thing is a compatible fluid. Then be sure to wrap the PEc-pad on tight so it's not sticking out everywhere so you can swipe without brushing up against internals bits, this can transfer fibres and may also end up with traces of oils.

The setup is fairly similar and works just as well, the new housing buttons seem to feel more positive somehow when operating them and the finish on the housing is different, sort of satin finish seems somewhat water repellent. The AF is pretty good probably a bit of a step up in snappiness. I'm finding the tracking not quite as good as on the EM-1 II, I contacted OM system support and they tried to replicate and it seems like I might need to put mine in for a look as their camera didn't do the same, it seems to jump to a slightly closer object when tracking in macro. Really only noticeable when shooting at reasonable magnification.

Re-posting to see if changes impact image quality. Looks like an improvement but still not as vibrant as viewing on Photoshop.

Welcome Sandra, good to have you here.

Greetings John, good to have you here, your setup in Vanuatu sounds great.

The forum software seems to have sucked the life out of the image, the image as displayed in the gallery look better. https://waterpixels.net/gallery/image/126-miamira_flavicostata_3jpg/?context=new

Got my OM-1 housing wet for the first time today, had the camera for land based work for quite a while now. Dived the steps in Sydney, Air temperature 32°C and Water temperature a fresh 17°C. Quite reasonable vis bit a lot of whale snot algae. Here's a pic from today of the Miamira flavocostata nudi that has made re-appearance on the site.

No problem, a similar species is quite common around Sydney.

This is one of the fang blennies, possibly the sabretooth blenny, Plagiotremus azaleus.

Welcome Kate, good to see you here.

Hi Ross, good to see you here!

Hi Eric, good hearing from you. The aim is to get back to what Wetpixel offered and I'm pleased so many WP people have come across. Thanks of course for setting it up in the first place!

Looking at the images they look pretty nice as presented, however something odd is going on with the scaling. When I view the image on my monitor the last image is 256mm wide. If I click on it, it displays bigger and is 292mm wide. To compare I went into Photoshop as I know it displays pixel for pixel and a 1500 pixel image there is 350mm wide, while a 1200 pixel image is 292 mm wide. It would seem to me that the recommended pixel dimension is 1200 px to fit the column width at least as it scales on my display in Firefox. I can't notice too much difference between the image in line and the larger one when I click on it, but the image I suspect is not one that will suffer too much from compression, other images may fear differently. I'm viewing on a 27"display 2560 x 1440 pixels. As far as quality goes the biggest impact will come re-sizing the images - I don't notice much difference between a 50 and 70 quality image in most cases. Ideally it should display in line at native pixel dimensions for best quality - 1500 pixels is clearly too wide to the column here but it does display nicely if you click on the image.