Chris Ross

I would observe that we have two independent people stating the HF-1 out performs the Apollo III strobe and one person reporting that the Apollo III is better compared to their HF-1. Surely it's equally possible that the HF-1s in question(or their batteries) are under performing compared to the Apollo III samples as the only data available is the comparative performance of the strobe samples that are owned. It could also be related to the batteries being used in each model as these seem to critical to achieving this sort of performance. Backscatter in particular are quite vocal about using the right type of battery and it's not unheard of for batteries to lose performance after some use.

The field can be estimated same way as any lens and 8-15 with 1.4x becomes a 11-21mm lens. You still get the full 180deg diagonal at 15mm actual focal length, this means 11-14.9mm (actual focal length vignettes with the corners dark, similar to what you see between 8 and 15mm on the bare lens. I've done the calculations assuming an equisolid fisheye projection and with the 1.4x at 15mm FL (11.2mm on the zoom ring) the horizontal field is 144 deg, while zoomed all the way in to 21mm the field is 96 deg wide which is about equivalent to 16mm rectilinear lens. Comparing horizontal fields gives a better idea of coverage in my view.

There are lots of monitor choices around these days, but the field for truly colour accurate monitors is much more limited. I have a pair of Eizo color edge monitors, One is a CS2731 and the other is a more basic Eizo model. I use the good panel for my image and the second screen will have the various toolbars, like actions, libraries, history etc on it. It is also used when I need another app open and visible at the same time. Realistically as far as I have been able to work out Windows only properly supports one monitor profile, though I haven't dug in more deeply recently. If I recall correctly I calibrated the secondary panel once and used a workaround to apply the calibration. One of the reasons to have a high end monitor is so that they can be calibrated well to show the full colour gamut they are capable of, so to me it makes sense to have one good quality monitor and a second for more pedestrian work that doesn't need the colour accuracy. I think you won't go wrong with Eizo panels. Though they mostly have 27" panels and some larger ones in the high end CG range but they are quite pricey. They have good warranty cover and dead pixel policy. This company is enthusiastic about colour accuracy and you read their monitor recommendations here, they recommend Eizo and for cheaper monitors BenQ range: Monitor Recommendations | Image Science

The issue with the 12-32 is you need to zoom in to 14mm to stop the vignette, a minor inconvenience I guess. I recall that the non-pancake Panasonic 14-42 was tested some time back and found to give the best performance.

Hi @Adventurer , I believe you have Apollo III 2.0 strobes based on your previous posts, the data from @DreiFish mentions Apollo III, not Apollo III 2.0 - is this referring to the same model strobes?

with or without strobes? I use AWB and it's generally pretty close when shooting with strobes. I've shot a few subjects purely with ambient and also used AWB as I recall, it wasn't perfect but provided a good starting point for adjusting the raw files.

Hopefully someone who actually does this will chime in, however, I assume you have read the manual; #11075-HSS-SONY-A1-A9II-Nauticam-November-2025.pdf - Google ไดรฟ์ It has a section on shooting in manual mode, there are 3 ways of doing it, the WL mode it seems is a workaround to deal with the fact you can't set manual mode in the SONY menus, so the converter is set to use the WL mode setting to turn manual on and off through the WL setting in the menu. This is programmed into the converter, so WL mode doesn't do what the camera manual says it will. It seems like the simplest way if you are not sure and new to manual mode and don't plan switch to TTL (it seems you are saying you are resigned to shooting manual), you follow the instructions for shooting in hard manual mode - setting so the converter is on zero as is the strobe. My understanding 0 is hard manual for any strobe and the other settings select the TTL profile and also allow HSS to work according to which strobe you have. You may miss out on HSS this way, but this is not likely to be a problem unless you want to shoot in wide apertures for macro. It's probably best to KISS if you are new to manual strobe shooting and get that sorted before venturing into HSS. You just need to not set a shutter speed greater than max sync speed when shooting if you are in hard manual.

Seems to me time is on your side to search out a second hand rig, while it might be nice to carry over lenses etc. I would suggest being open minded if the right deal of a full package comes along, If you want to stay APS_C and Canon and Nauticam it will probably limit your choices a little.

Looks great Joanna, thanks for reporting back it is indeed very flexible.

That statement is specific to 90/100mm macro lenses, for sure the 50 and 60mm macros will work better behind a dome, the wider the lens, the more the dome helps.

That is exactly why people use Cola to remove tarnish from metals, we all know what it will bring up a coin like new. Regarding Hydrofluoric acid this is quite water soluble so there is not much advantage to using baking soda so you flush with large quantities of water, you should also be careful that the foaming caused when CO2 is released when reacting with acids does not cause splashing or over flow and damage other things. Ni MH batteries on the other hand leak potassium hydroxide when wet. Again water soluble but alkaline rather than acidic. Whatever you do the final step is flushing with clean water so you don't leave any salts or other contaminants behind.

Thanks, was using the wrong search term. There are two issues possibly three to contend with, first the long protruding nose, there needs to be enough space to fit that. Second apparently there is a modified lens mount to prevent the bayonet engaging, an extra tab I f I recall corrrectly, I think I saw a post from someone who proposed removing that tab. Third is may also be locked out electronically. It's unfortunate as I think UW photographers are probably the only people who would want to do this. Also I believe there are no RF mount Kenko converters.

I didn't see that in the linked page and I searched the article, is it in the video or somewhere like that? I think UW photographers are the only people on the planet who might be interested in adding a converter? The issue is that the Canon RF 1.4x has a very long nose. On the 190deg field maybe the solution is to position the lens at the 180 deg point in the lens and the blue ring will be vignetted out? On the filter holder, this is similar to what is used on the big tele lenses. If it gets in the way of the zoom ring you might be able to remove it and put some tape over the hole. Also the position of the zoom gear in the housing will influence whether it's a problem, the Nauticam housings for example position the camera back in the housing so there is room for an RF-EF adapter, which means the gear will be forward of where the filter holder is. All of this will be confirmed or otherwise no doubt once the housing manufacturers have tried it out.

As I understand things Coca Cola is not a routine cleanup medium, I have seen people suggest using it after a Li-ion battery has been flooded and the battery compartment is full of sea water mixed with battery innards, The blend of sea water and the internal components of a Li-ion is going to be far worse than Coca Cola. The active ingredient of coke is phosphoric acid, that's why it makes tarnished coins look like new. I don't think I would put it a battery compartment unless I had a flood. You do need to consider what the strobe is made from - plastic strobes could be harmed by hydrocarbon solvents used in some contact cleaners, likewise just pouring isopropyl alcohol in is not advisable as it may react with some plastics. There was a post some years back with advice from Reef photo about what could happen to a flooded INON strobe, they said that plastic used in INONs was strong but not chemically resistant. Isopropyl should only be applied to contacts with a Q tip not poured in. IMO Coca cola would do less damage than alcohol - plastic is generally inherently resistant to acids especially relatively mild ones like phosphoric.

I think the value of something that old is just not there, even one generation old gear sells for very little. You might get lucky and get some $$ or not. I see a couple of options, Get it serviced and keep using it. Find a low actuation body as a backup. Retire it and get another system you could see what was available second hand and if you get a complete system and don't try to keep using your lenses it's probably easier to find something you like. Retire it and buy a new housing and body and try to salvage your lenses and ports. Adapting your macro lens to mirrorless may not be so great in performance though??

In general, no, flat ports are used with macro lenses for a reason. Yes the corners will be slightly better, but you can't add on a diopter if you wanted to and the large size of the dome makes it more difficult to work in close. For some specialised uses a dome has some advantages, but it seems not all macros lenses work well in domes due to the location of the entrance pupil either moving or being right at the back end of the lens.

😃As much fun as it is to measure and research new stuff, not much point to it unless we go diving!

@Alex_Mustard had some posts on using a dome port with macro lenses, he typically used one of those small section domes for this, here's one article on this: Inside ScubaShooting Macro With A Curved PortExplore the benefits of curved macro ports for underwater photography, including improved image sharpness and a wider angle of view.I remember some posts on Wetpixel possibly, but can't find them right now.

I expect that using a fisheye with the RF 1.4x and 2x won't be an option as they have a protruding front element and the also a special bayonet that will only mate with lenses specifically designed for the converters. It needs the right bayonet and enough space at the back to accommodate the nose on the front of the converter. If I recall the RF 100mm macro won't accept them so it seems unlikely a fisheye will, UW photographers are unique in making use of a fisheye zoom and converters. The Kenko converters are different in that they are designed to work with any lens as opposed to only the ones the manufacturer thinks could use one. I don't believe Kenko make an RF 1.4x or 2.0x as Canon doesn't allow Full frame third party optics to be licensed though. Be interesting to see if the lens does appear though.

You will note in an example in the video, the lens used a 17mm extension added to if I recall correctly a 30mm ring. However the video notes that the combination vignetted, so the suggestion was to just remove the 17mm ring and just use the 30mm. This gives you an idea of what you can get away with. IMO an ultra wide rectilinear lens (14mm FF equivalent or less) will be more sensitive than a fisheye lens. I think it likely also depends on the lens in question. A marginal performer might show more issues if the spacing is less than optimal. I think the right answer is get as close as you can within the limitations of your housing system. Some systems have 10mm increments others the extensions go up by 5mm.

I'm using a bayonet holder for my MFO3, I'm on m43 so the magnification of the 60mm macro lens is sufficient and I don't use a diopter. So only taking the MFO3 on and off and not needing to park a diopter. Swapping them is fairly easy, the MFO3 is a heavy lump above water, but doesn't give me problems below water. I also used cargo shorts when diving in Lembeh, I only needed to fall off the boat so no issues with them falling down, not an option shore diving in Sydney where I use the bayonet. The bayonet holder is mounted on a strobe arm, when I'm entering/exiting the water I have the neoprene bag it is supplied with covering the lens. Getting washed into the rocks exiting is a common enough occurrence that some protection is needed. Once UW I remove and clip off the bag.

I really think the fundamental problem is the response curve of the camera. That's not a fault rather that is how they are designed. The way around I think is to reduce the exposure. Easiest is lowering the ISO if possible, but looks like you at ISO 50 already, so maybe place a grey card on the wall and measure brightness off that or double the strobe's distance from the wall. You might run into problems at the low power end, but within the limitations of equipment you have available seems like this might be the best solution. You would need separate sets of measurements for the high and low powers. Also as I understand it ISO 50 on the Z8 is extended ISO which is achieved by over exposing the image and pulling the exposure down which tends to blow highlights. Maybe for the Z8 base ISO might be a better option?

quite a bit more than reported on Backscatters website, which is good.

Potentially, but the LEDs are only 1000 lumens at max power where they have a 98 minute burn time, spreading that into the 110° beam means you only have 30% of the light falling on the target that a 60° beam would give and that's assuming that the edges of the beam are as bright as the centre which they won't be. The strobes are also likely to be further from the subject than what a focus light could be. I use a 700 lumen light with a 60° beam which works quite well. You don't need to have a very bright focus beam for the AF to work, but I think if it was significantly dimmer it might struggle.

😂, I wouldn't be doing it either!