Chris Ross

This of course is about the Easy dive housing which never seems to have taken off . The Doris housing that is the subject of this topic seems to have made changes from that and how well it works will depend of the firmware the housing uses to control the camera. I think though that it will be hard to beat using a dial to set shutter and aperture and other common adjustments. We'll have to wait to see the reviews.

which is the actual attraction of the fisheye less water between you and your subject. But of course there are limits and large animals might be too far away for a full frame fisheye, but it has no rival for reef scenics. This is why I moved to the 8-15 on an adapter , as I said it covers Fisheye, the wider part of the WWL through to a covering a 7-14mm rectilinear at least in field of view. It's not for everyone as it gets expensive quite quickly with the N85-N120 adapter, extension ring, port plus the metabones and the lens itself, it's also quite heavy compared to a small dome alone. But if found it excellent on my last trip to Papua New Guinea. A WWL could be a good option, but it doesn't match a 180° diagonal fisheye for reef scenics. Certainly it's good on the wide end, but see people saying the long half of the zoom range is not so sharp.

I have used the Panasonic lens with the Zen DP-100 and it doesn't show the dome shade. The Olympus with the 30mm extension should not be showing it either. There should only be one N85 port from Zen, assume you are using the DP-100-N85 model with the Nauticam 30mm mini extension ring? The dome shade is non removable on this one so really can't be rotated incorrectly. Perhaps post a pic of your setup?

In F mount the port chart says that the 105mm F lens uses macro port 87 or 60mm plus 30mm. It uses this same combination with the FTZ adapter on the Z series cameras. In Z mount the 105mm lens uses the macro port 80 or the 60mm plus 20mm. Not sure what the concern about the Tamron would be, it looks like it should use the 10mm extension with the 60mm port You would need to confirm this of course. The specs for the 60mm say it is 89mm long and with the FTZ adapter which is 46.5-16 long = 30.5mm long. So total of length of 119.5. The Tamron is 126.5 long which is 7mm longer than the 60mm on the FTZ so a 10mm extension should be about right to use with the macro port 60 for the Tamron if you go that way. All this assumes the published lengths are correct, hence the need to check

I wouldn't necessarily go with the 7"dome, I've not used it but know several who have and it's quite big and floaty. I have the Zen 170mm dome and it's more compact, though if you want to use the 8-25 you need a N120 version with adapter with the lens installed from the front as the front end of the lens won't fit through the N85 port. Same problem with the 7"dome. So if you think you might want to use the 8-25 or a 7-14 f2.8 then you need to consider this upfront. I'm not sure what you mean by "what converted field of view would be left"? You get the full 24mm full frame equivalent field with this lens in any of the domes. It's not particularly wide UW. I use it a bit diving in Sydney(temperate waters), but rarely otherwise. I'm not sure what your objection to the fisheye lens is, the barrel distortion only is a problem if there are straight lines in the pic and they are placed towards the edges. 3 main things would be wrecks, the water line at the surface and the bottom if it is in the frame, but for the most part it's not noticeable. With the 8-15 lens the barrel distortion reduces progressively as you zoom in. What subjects are you wanting to shoot to complement the fisheye?

try this link, hopefully it takes you to the post: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BHGYrvWKt/ It's the bottom left photo on the post with the guy taking a photo with his phone, the Viewfinder is on far right of photo and is as you described. Have to wait for some field reports to see how it works in practice.

That should make a difference, interesting to see how it performs This face book page has a lot of pics taken with the housing and various cameras and some pics showing various aspects. https://www.facebook.com/underwaterqinglin/

https://www.facebook.com/underwaterqinglin/

Assuming you mean native 4K/5.3K displays - there don't seem to many around, the Panasonic YZ-F1 is one, you'll see that it achieves 4K resolution by using the same pixel pitch as an Ipad (more or less) of 230ppi and using a 20"display, it's 475 x 334 mm so like using a handheld computer monitor. I see a lot that say 4K but their pixel resolution is not 4K native. Using a finer pixel pitch on a smaller tablet to get 4K resolution might be possible but I would think that extra resolution would not be visible to the eye. Then of course there's the question if the Go-Pro lenses actually resolve to 4K detail with their lenses and the air water interface when used UW. But that's an argument for another time.

Some data on the two lenses: Tamron length: 126.5 mm MFD/working distance: 230/119 Port: ??? 13.5mm shorter than the macro port 80 or 30mm longer than the macro port 60 Nikon Z Length: 140 MFD/working distance: 290/134 Port: Macro port 80 Nikon F 60mm macro with FTZ Length: 89mm + (44-16) = 117 port: macro port 60 The lens is 13.5mm shorter than the Z lens, so should need a Macro port 66? You could use the macro port 80 but the lens wouldn't be as close to the port glass as you might like for using with diopters. If the lengths reported are correct adding a 10mm extension to the macro port 60 should work for the Tamron. If you already have the Macro port 60 you could buy a 10mm extension ring for the Tamron instead of a macro port 80 for the Nikon Z or you could continue to use your existing port for the Nikon F 105mm. As for the 60mm macro, it seems the preferred Nikon choice for blackwater if you see that in your future.

I think the devil will be in the details. The easy dive housing that has been made for a number of years certainly hasn't exploded in popularity. A number of reasons behind that, one being that the housing has to be quite large to fit all those different models. You will notice that is doesn't have a viewfinder as such just a large window somewhere near where a camera viewfinder might be. The housing needs to have an adjustable camera mount so that the lens is centred in the port. The location of the viewfinder centre line in relation to the lens mount centre line is quite random so precise alignment of the viewfinder to the housing back can't be achieved - so no 45° viewfinders for this housing as it stands, unless they develop an adjustable position for the viewfinder port. Another potential problem is if you don't use the cameras on-off switch (mechanical) you have to turn on the camera before closing the housing and leave it on probably disabling sleep functions so it doesn't shut down between dives. On the price remember it's an Aussie website so price is $AUD, probably about $US 5300 or so. Be interesting to see the finer details of it though.

It can be done, but you are using custom made cables so is a little pricey. Dive and See does this sort of cable: https://diveandsee.com/products/cables/DNC-1035-Waterproof-USB-2.0-extension-cable limited to 10 ft (3m) for USB 3.0 though and add a USB-C bulkhead for your housing, you'd need to contact them to confirm it will connect to this cable.

on m43 a 100-140mm port is fine and larger gives no real advantages. The smaller ports allow you to get closer to your subject which translates into a larger subject size. It doesn't seem like much but a small change in subject distance makes a big difference. You can try this out with the lens on land.

Video clips are nice of course, but for ID a series of photos is much better IMO, you can zoom in for details needed and might even be able to count fin rays, all but impossible on video.

I'm using the OM-1 previously the EM-1 MkII and the EM-5 Mkii. The auto focus is fast and snappy on the OM-1 in most circumstances, but can slow down a little with high magnification. It's a step up over the EM-1 MkII in everything bar tracking. UW using the 60mm macro it is pretty good with little hunting. I haven't used the subject recognition UW and the tracking works sometimes, but I tend not to use it much UW. The subject tracking/recognition is great above water. With a fisheye it's seamless and as you say no need for tracking in any shots I've taken.

Phil Rudin has reviewed it already, the review is in the latest Underwater photography magazine: https://www.uwpmag.com/ It's a free sign up to download it.

There's quite a few. The 12mm is good in that it works OK in a small dome I believe. The 12-40 and 12-45 are both great lenses, probably need a 170mm dome at least for them though and there's the 8-25mm as well. Or adapting the Canon EF 8-15 lens is a great solution. On m43 this gives you a lens that goes from a full frame fisheye all the way through to a 14mm lens (28mm full frame equivalent) in field of view. So it is effectively a 8mm fisheye combined with a 7-14mm lens (with barrel distrortion) in terms of field of view.

Are you talking about subject recognition? that shouldn't recognise dust and bubbles. I would think you would need to develop a routine of some type, don't know if you use back button focus, but this solves lots of issues. Cameras generally will jump to the background rather than foreground in my experience at least so you should be able to take advantage of that. If you're troubled by a dust bunny or something, move the focus point away so the camera doesn't see it. If you have tracking focus that works use that and AF when you are over the subject then let tracking takeover. If you are talking fast moving big animals, pre-focus on your fin tip which will get you closer to the right focus point. Plus a blower bulb is your friend, blow out your dome just before assembling it.

The minimum focal ldistance is specified from the focal plane at the sensor, you need to subtract the flange length and the length of the lens and adapter. This works out to be focusing very close. I think you possibly need to keep the dome clean and brush off bubbles if they form. Also consider change to just using just the centre or a single focus point and place it on something with decent contrast if you are not doing this already. If you use back button focus you an control what the camera focuses on better, if needed focus and re-compose is easy this way. I use that lens on my setup and it rarely gives me problems.

Good to see, I think many travel insurance policies exclude checked baggage.

I assume you are trying to mount fibre optic cables to a polycarbonate housing to trigger using the camera onboard flash. Most compact housings usually come with an accessory or have one available to mount fibre optics over their flash. The price for the item you linked seems quite excessive - probably why it's discontinued. If you have a TG-6 this item seems quite reasonably priced: https://www.housingcamera.com/aoi-fca-01-fiber-optical-cable-adapter-for-tg-3-tg-4-tg-5-tg-6-cameras.html?srsltid=AfmBOopnMsdJR7u-RZHSxfJxGkmfrKWORmn2Ox2V7Lwa6TvFNBCC_qLI If you are making something yourself seems like double sided adhesive tape might be a good option. as for size, most of the dedicated ones sold seem to cover the entire flash window. There's threads on 3D printing accessory in this forum, be worth searching through them, to see tips on printing and materials to use when printing. Have a look at this thread: A couple of files linked there you could modify.

Any ships chandler should sell something similar I've bought a few like this from our local one.

Hunting around on the webpage found a diagram showing the lens is 54mm from bayonet to top of front element, which is almost the same size as the the Panasonic 8mm. This suggests it would be close to working with a fisheye dome and no extension, same as the Panasonic lens, however with a 225° field it would need to sit a little forward of where a 180° fisheye would. It's probably something you would need to try in the housing to confirm. I would agree though that the Sigma with AF might be a better option, though you would have to hunt around to buy one second hand.

It appears flying to Fiji out of LAX, that Fiji air is the only option unless you want to connect through Auckland on AirNZ at greater cost and apparently they are pretty strict on carry ons, probably as they are effectively the only game in town? Flying somewhere else like the Phillipines will probably open up a lot more possibilities. Another strategy to use is of course the vest which you can don if you encounter this behaviour and know exactly what to remove to get the weight on spec. Also mentioning the lithium batteries which are not allowed to be checked. On the topic of insurance, read the fine print, I have seen policies that exclude things like cameras if they are checked sometimes with an allowance that it is covered if the airline forces you to check the bag.

It will help to visualise how the plots from the Retra post compare to the field of a fisheye lens. The often quoted rule of thumb is to separate your strobes the the same distance as the distance to your subject. With wide beams you may point them out some more. If you take the zone diagram from the retra link and copy and superimpose them to show the strobe coverage from each strobe, you can then superimpose the frame width of a fisheye lens - assuming about a 135-140° horizontal field. you will see opposite the strobes the beam is centre plus zone 1 (green brightness) If you look at the plots of brightness in stops you will see the Seacam is 1.5 stops brighter in Green (zone 1) at constant centre brightness. So to get the same exposure the Seacam would be turned down a bit on centre brightness compared to the Z330. To me it seems that the more even beam would be less prone to flaring as the strobe is turned down with lower power in the centre compared to the less even beam. Add to this the tendency towards a cross shaped beam with the Z330 and the fact you are probably aiming the wide beam strobe out some more it gets the bright central beam further away from the dome glass as it leaves the strobes. The other thing to note is the very outer parts of the beam don't contribute much to the image even with the fisheye lens plus the fact that the Zone 3 (magenta) is at least 4 stops less bright than the centre of the beam. the beam widths are: Zone 1: 90° Zone 2: 108° Zone 3: 126° Zone 4: 131° All based upon the Retra webpage here: https://www.retra-uwt.com/pages/flashgun-light-comparison