Chris Ross

Typically what you see on the rear screen is the embedded jpeg and this is influenced by the JPEG settings like brightness/contrast and sharpening. But as far as I am aware the screen and EVF should be displaying the same thing. You could compare the image brightness between the EVF and the rear screen inn controlled (dark) environment to see if there is any difference noted when viewing a previously taken image Some things could be influencing this. First if the brightness settings for EVF and Screen are different. The other thing to consider is that EVF goes quickly from a dull looking natural light image to suddenly displaying a fully illuminated by flash image which is generally more colourful. It may take time for your eyes to adjust when this happens and the auto review time is probably not long enough.

It should be the same on all housings should it not? This dimension would need to be constant to ensure that the focus and zoom gears will mesh with housing zoom mechanism, though the zoom gear on mine is 4mm thick by a quick measurement so it could be off by +/- 1mm or so and still mesh. If you are trying to get the zoom knobs on adapters to mesh the tolerance I think would be tighter to work well maybe +/- 0.1mm tolerance to ensure the gears fully mesh? Not the easiest distance to measure, on most housings you would need to use a straight edge laid across the port opening and measure from that to the flange.

You are right, I got lost in all the tests😂. Even so in the tests above it suggests it doesn't do so well even though it focuses close.

There seems to be a gravitation towards "good enough", some examples include MP3 music, Phone pics, Go pro videos etc. That's not to say that you can't take rather acceptable photos on your phone etc. it's just that there are so many crappy-average photos and videos getting posted. Granted these tools are constantly improving AI certainly is coming but whether it's a panacea for poor technique remains to be seen. If the tools are built the same way as the large language models by scraping the web for images the risk that it will produce average-mediocre images as that's about the standard on the web by weight of numbers. Even it receives more expert training it seems possible it will produce a certain sameness among images at least initially. It's booming right now but who knows what the future might bring? The boom may continue but there could also be a dot.com equivalent bubble burst when the returns on the investment aren't what was expected. Also whether it takes over or not depends on a lot of things such as some people just want the image, others want to put their own stamp on it and develop the skills needed to get the image they want and enjoy doing the processing. On strobes straight tubes are used most likely as they are cheaper and while sizes are reducing there will be physical limits to hold enough batteries and accommodate the electronics. Size has some advantages - currently bigger bodies and strobes use bigger batteries and can do more shots without needing to be changed. If things get too small they are generally less buoyant so you deal with a heavier rig underwater. The other limitation is button and dial size and placment. The only real complaint about the otherwise nice S-220 strobe if the small controls. Don't want to come across as all negative, certainly some things will get easier as better tools evolve. The limitation for us UW shooters is that the market is relatively tiny and anything on the camera/lens size that benefits us is accidental. Smaller and lighter gear of course is always welcome and everyone will find their won sweet spot of size/weight vs performance. Some of the computational photography tools OM system is coming up with are indeed quite amazing, not all of them are that applicable to UW imaging but its good to see them being developed.

I don't know enough about optics to give a 100% accurate explanation on the ability of some lenses to work well in small domes. However the basic premise seems quite straight forward which is the ability of the lens to render the curved virtual image and have it all sharp and in focus across a flat sensor plane. We have seen that some close focusing lenses do a particularly good job at this. Certainly a lens being able to focus close it seems helps in this situation, but as I understand things most WA lenses don't have a perfectly flat focal plane and rely somewhat upon depth of field to render images sharp across the sensor plane. I notice that the newer Sony lenses are particularly good in smaller domes, while it seems the RF 15-35 isn't as good even though it focuses close. The amount of curvature of the focal plane may interact with the curved virtual images in ways that are more or less beneficial. A lens may have a flat field at infinity and develop field curvature as it focuses closer and the direction of curvature can reverse as well. The shape of the focal surface can be found on Photons to Photos optical bench. For zooms it is only available at infinity, some primes allow you to adjust focus and observe how it impacts the shape of the focal plane. If you look at optical diagrams for the lens elements you can see that the zooms within a given manufacturer have similar layouts. If you compare the Sony 16-35 f2.8 GMII to the Canon equivalent the lens element layout if quite different and seems to be different to earlier Sony 16-35 zooms. On the issue of microcontrast, you could of course test that by taking shots with the 140mm dome a little closer. Not sure why it would be less in the 140mm dome.

It depends - is the 55mm adapter one that was sold as allowing use of adapted Canon EF lenses with Fuji? If I recall correctly the last line of the port chart used to include an adapter designed for this purpose and the Nauticam gear would mate up to the Zoom knob on the adapter. If not you would need to work out the correct extension to use.

In theory it should work just as well as the Tokina 10-17 on any other APS-C body, so same zoom range and image quality. The only variable that is unique to the Fuji- Tokina 10-17 combination is how well the adapter plays with with the Fuji cameras. You could search around to see how the AF works with various adapters on land based applications. Metabones publishes known limitations for their adapters. https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_EF-X-BT1

The specs say it's 7.2V so it must be either 2 or 4 cells.

The magnification obtained with the 5T is not as high as typical wet diopters like the Nauticam SMC-1 which achieve something around 2x magnification. It will get you something like 1.3x on a 105mm macro lens. Also it means you can't shoot larger things that you find as the lens no longer focuses to infinity, being able to take the diopter off UW is the bige benefit of thaw wet lenses.

Can't help with the extension required. However I suspect the screws are really not needed when you have a vacuum. If you have the reported 200 mBar vacuum on the housing the the closing force is around 22kg. The extension ring if push and turn and it's not going to come apart with that type of closing force. I see the Type II ring is now offered, it's still push and turn but has an internal lock.

I would say it depends on what you want to do with it for 90% of your shots with it to some extent. If you're mainly doing splits you'll benefit from the bigger domes, but if it's occasional splits, you want to travel with it and do CFWA then you might want a different compromise. The 230mm dome is a big beast and difficult to travel with, the 8.5" a bit more manageable. Neither are ideal for CFWA due to their size. If the 230mm/8.5"dome is too big for you maybe adapting a different dome might be a good option, something in the 7-8"range Nauticam recommend the 140mm dome as most optimum as it's the only one in their line up that allows you position the Entrance pupil correctly at the dome centre of curvature. It's fairly good for CFWA and great for reef scenics, but a little small for doing splits easily. The other domes can't do this as they are not full hemispheres. Doesn't mean they won't work, just not optimum, the corners maybe not as good and the angle of view changes a little, however many people would be happy with them. You don't want the 180mm as it's quite a small sphere segment and you need to have the lens well forward of the optimum position. Finally if you want to use the 8mm end of the lens you need a removable dome shade.

That's not how it works, the W-hr for each battery is additive. The amp-hr capacity remains the same, but it is the same amps at a higher voltage which is more energy. For AA Eneloop total capacity is 1.2 x 2.55 x 8 = 24.8 W-hr for AA lithium it is 1.5 x 2.2 x 8 = 26.4 W-hr The new battery pack is possibly using 4 x 18650 cells of 2770 mAhr capacity in 2 parallel two series arrangement. Comparing to other battery packs it looks better value for sure, but 4 x 18650 would be at most $US80 retail price so it's quite a bit more than 4 loose cells, which is why people are complaining. I agree with Dave Hicks though, if others can make a strobe using 2 x 21700 cells it would seem to be a good solution as long as people buy good quality protected cells.

So if you are after a 200mm dome port you could look at this S&S dome: https://www.backscatter.com/Sea-Sea-DX-200-AR-Underwater-Dome-Port Can be used on Nauticam N120 by changing out the rear lug ring. Confirm with the dealer before buying that you can still source the lug rings (and that S&S still have them as a bolt on piece). Likewise you should be able to adapt Isotta ports. Finding the lug ring for sale might be a an issue though Backscatter mark them discontinued. I see now though they have a 20mm Nauticam to S&S extension ring: https://fotografit.eu/products/36-nauticam---dslr-ext-rings/420-sea-amp-sea-to-nauticam-extension-ring-20/

I didn't realise that's how Sony hotshoes were connected until recently. When I first saw it I thought it was a problem waiting to happen. Pavel has said he thinks it's not a strong design and a google search found a few complaints about it as well. One approach might be to order a spare hotshoe for triggers with separate hotshoes. On land you can potentially deal with any problem by jiggling and re-seating plus land flashes have a clamping mechanism that jams the contacts into the hotshoe. Maybe Sony triggers need a similar arrangement?

I came across this post showing the underside of the trigger: I would be looking carefully at those two pins you can see on the underside checking they are clean and making good contact. Maybe try some contact cleaner?

Sounds like you have done all of the tests I can think of. I would suggest messaging Balage, the owner of Turtle, he's on the forums: https://waterpixels.net/profile/267-turtle-balage/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjUxOSwiaWRfMiI6MTI3M30=

Are both strobes doing it? this tends to indicate a cause outside of the strobes. It would be odd for both to develop the same fault at the same time.

Can't help you with the intermittent issues related to your shutter button, though I suspect some of the problems associated with Sony hot shoes is the interface design they have with those tiny little contacts. Compared to the traditional flash hotshoes getting poor contact through those pins is not the least bit surprising. The fact that it can wriggle back and forth in the hotshoe would be my first target, I had a mini flash unit fail to work from that cause due to lost contact. I would suggest experimenting with the hotshoe cable a bit. You might be able to pad it out or even jam a toothpick in next to the hotshoe plate to prevent the insert from moving. You say it is a Nauticam trigger - that is manual Only I would guess? Does it have the small pins across the front or does it just use the centre contact?

Welcome aboard Zane, good to see another Aussie joining up - you're Australia based now?

You need to look at the top view as well to see how controls line up there, the critical ones being on/off switch and the control dials. I found the camera decision page and they had top view comparisons, I cut out the R5 and overlaid it on top of the R6 II at 50% opacity: Perfect alignment is not possible so I lined up the lens mounts which is how they would go into the housing, It looks pretty close on first view but the R5 has the on-off switch where the R6 II has a movie/stills switch and they don't line up, while the R6 has a mode dial where the R5 has a top LCD. the rear control dial is also a little out of alignment. For the camera controls to work reliably the dials/buttons need to be aligned to sub millimetre precision and this is only rarely the case between different models. This seems like enough to render the R5 very difficult to use in the housing even if you could live without rear mode dials and on/off switch. null

The other solution for the 14-30 and 15-30 might be zooming in a little bit? Can you zoom in enough to use the 50mm extension without vignetting?

If the magnet won't activate the switch then it likely needs replacing. I assume you've tried swapping with a known working magnet and swapped the magnet out from the bad strobe to another one to prove it's not the magnet. If this is the case there's nothing else you could do externally and you'll need to find a repair agent. It should be a relatively simple repair too replace the switch for a service agent.

It does hold the vacuum, I know it's pricey, but it's cheaper than the Dive and See bulkhead I was looking at which is $US390. the short USB cable is also a good idea.

I agree these solutions are what I call kludges, they work but have a range of caveats. For example going for a macro wide solution for APS-C forces you into a 60mm macro lens which is not ideal. If you are on Sony APS-C the short macro don't work so well. The Nauticam solution on the MWL sounds good but you are at f14-16. Even the FCP produces good image but has very restricted depth of filed in CFWA situations. The most straight forward solution is the WWL/WACP and it works seamlessly on Nauticam but doesn't give you a full frame fisheye option. A zoom fisheye in a dome really doesn't have any of these issues, the only problem is having to adapt a zoom gear on Nauticam. If a camera manufacturer introduced a 10-20 APS-C of 15-30mm full frame zoom fisheye lens it would be the ideal solution. For the moment you only get this with cameras that can use a Tokina 10-17 or with m43 where you can adapt the Canon 8-15.

Not that I'm aware of, it's an extremely simple part though. You can use the the Nauticam gear directly on the tokina 10-17 mounted with a Metabones speed booster as for some reason the 34.7mm N85-N120 was designed to mount EF lens in combination with the speed booster which is thinner than 1.0x glassless smart adapter. The Tokina is a good solution but it doesn't have the zoom range and becomes a 7-12 mm lens with the 0.7x speed booster. IMO it's worth finding somewhere that can print you one for the extra zoom range of the 8-15 lens.