Chris Ross

Just to be clear snoots would be really difficult, the beam limiters similar to the Retra reduction rings still produce something like a 90° beam (as opposed to a 130° beam) with a sharp dropoff, making it easier to contain the light, not too different to regular strobes.

As I recall this is a failure reported in any type of strobe, the circuit that cuts the strobe output has failed but the trigger circuit still works. There was a reset procedure for earlier versions of S&S strobes, but don't recall seeing one for this model. As a workaround try it in TTL to see if it works adjusting power. You could run it in TTL triggering off the duration of your other strobe? In the meantime I would be calling your dealer about warranty - do this first if it has not expired as yet.

The benefit is largely around slowing down the movement of the AF point from target so the AF can lock on, it doesn't work miracles but I find it helpful. Basically the AF is your third axis to counter back and forth movement. I see no reason to turn it off, some of the earlier generations might have caused some issues, but today it is sound technology.

I'm not so sure a snoot would be a recipe for good mental health shooting active fish, probably restrict to anglerfish, scorpion fish and others that won't depart quite so quickly.😂 I'm thinking inward lighting probably should work quite well on fish in mid water once you get the angles dialled in.

There's a number of approaches to this depending upon how far away the fish are and separation from background. If you want to light your subject but avoid the reef behind the classic recommendation is to try using inward lighting - p122 on my copy of Alex Mustard's book. Adding beam limiters can help as well, something like the Retra reduction ring and macro rings. Backscatter can be an issue with this technique and would work best if you were in really close. For distant larger fish, the retra reflectors extend beam range and limit spread, but of course only available to use on Retra strobes. The reduction rings could be easily rigged up - 3D printed perhaps or as simple as finding a pipe or similar which is a snug fit on your strobe.

I think it really depends on whether you need the extra reach. Using a 1.4x with the 8-15 overlaps with about the 24-30mm range on the 24-50 with WWL. This would be about 13-15mm on the 8-15 and the distortion should be fairly similar to what you would get on the WWL in the same range. I'm not sure how important video is for you, if the crop mode is good enough and you are happy with the results maybe that's all you need? If you decide to go with the 1.4x you could use crop for extra video reach as well. The only slight downside of the 8-15 is that on full frame it works better stopped down in comparison to the WWL - but for video perhaps corners aren't so important. Shouldn't be an issue to stop down for stills. on the 24-50 zoom gear email Isotta, they may be able to provide you with one, I've heard they have done this in the past. Otherwise you could design one yourself and have it printed. Alternatively Waterpixels member Ross Gudgeon ( @Gudge ) does 3D printing of gears. You could contact him - his website is here: https://www.bluefishphoto.com.au/3d_printing/

Come diving in Sydney, plenty of macro life and weedy sea dragons as well.

It seems that on occasions it will flash red/blue during a dive but the documentation is not complete enough to tell what it is. My manual says it loss of vacuum, but the website doesn't mention that. In this case changing the battery helped, but the OP said they changed the battery out but it didn't help. So it seems to me to be some sort of fault in the system.

Agree, this applies to every o-ring in the housing - pre-loading them helps prevent leaks on the surface. Even housings like the Nauticam only have two clip points and the clamping force is greater closest to the clamps. They rely on the stiffness of the housing back to evenly apply pressure all over the o-ring - probably a big benefit is the two locking pins which resist the housing back moving sideways. That's why flanges in pipe systems uses multiple symmetrical bolts. Housings are different in that they seal against external pressure, but getting even pressure on the o-ring is still important. Once UW the pressure is totally even but not so in the air unless you have a vacuum pulled. It's not as bad as the old external clip housing like ikelite, but probably still not as good as the clam shell style backs many housing use.

Seems unlikley, the IS system only responds and cancels out whatever movements it detects, if the movements are slower it only makes its job easier. There were reports on the first generation IS that it didn't work well at high shutter speeds on long telephoto lenses, but I think it has moved beyond that now. I just leave IS on all the time, it activates on a half press of the shutter on my system.

Welcome onboard, you'll find many of the same faces have moved over here from Wetpixel, good to have you here.

It seems people are happy to shoot video with the WWL and similar wet optics. The barrel distortion of the WWL is pretty similar to what you get from a fisheye zoomed into about the same angle of view. When zoomed into 15mm with the 1.4x you have something like the field of view of a 16mm rectilinear lens (same horizontal field ). A WWL has about the filed of a 12-13mm rectilnear. You still have some barrel distortion but it is much milder. The barrel distortion of a fisheye lens stretches the corners and the stretch is progressively greater as you move out from the centre. Adding a 1.4x effectively crops that field of view and magnifies it and effectively reduces barrel distortion. The next consideration is that the converter arrangement you have allows video AF. I'm assuming it's probably OK on Canon but may need to check that C-AF works with a third party RF-EF converter if you go the Canon 1.4x path or that the Kenko 1.4x also works well enough with AF. You could also get the same impact by using a 1.4x in camera crop for video if that is an available option. Certainly would be easier on the wallet.

I think IS has a number of uses, the obvious one being hand holding assistance. AN additional consideration is stabilizing against movement from surge or current - I find it seems to help keeping the AF point over the subject. It's a common issue on Sydney dive sites that are subject to surge on occasions. I certainly notice it on land based hand held macro shots and it helps keep the AF point just where I want it.

Reverse pressure won't impact most o-rings. Piston seal o-rings seal equally well both ways, a surface o-ring is generally not so good at reverse pressure, THis is the type which can trap a vacuum in a housing when taken on a flight, particularly if the clamps are not super tight. The force on the flat back plate is quite high and can cause it to lift and let out the internal pressure. When the plane descends it's like taking it for a shallow dive and it will trap the vacuum. See the diagram on this page: https://www.applerubber.com/seal-design-guide/oring-basics/dimensional-considerations/ The top one, the face seal may not do reverse pressure as well depending on clamping force applied, typically used on some housing backs for example which may have only 2-3 clamps around the perimeter. The other two seal both ways.

May be if it was AOW and 40 dives rather than "or" 40 dives, some places will spit out an AOW diver with 8-10 dives. Though even that doesn't guarantee a diver with decent buoyancy control.

It would be interesting to compile all of these reports to look for common threads. I can see no reason why a strobe would leak after some period sitting sealed up with the batteries inside after working on the first dive. O-rings are not that complicated they should just work if they are installed without any grit or hairs present. Pressuring, de-pressuring and re-pressuring should make no difference, we do this all the time to the control o-rings in housings and probably quite often to port o-rings, when we leave the same port in place for multiple dive days. There are several different designs of o-ring installations including a surface groove with a flat plate sealing against it and various variations of piston mounts including screw on caps and variations of push and turn. Each have their own risks, for example it is possibly more likely for a surface o-ring to leak via a hair laying across the ring, especially if a vacuum is not used to seat the plate. Is one type more susceptible than others? O-rings whether they are installed in strobes or camera housings or torches should behave the same way. The only difference these days is that strobes don't have vacuum systems, while a great many housings sold today have one. One possibility is if it's a small leak with only a few drops it may take time to kill the batteries. Quite possibly the o-ring leaked and the batteries kept going but after sitting for hours to days the water has worked its way in and done the damage. As the strobe was not opened after the dive it is not possible to prove or disprove this. Maybe moving the strobe around again after the time it was sitting is enough to get the water to move somewhere it can do damage, or the damage is minor but accelerates when the batteries are loaded?

Just to be clear red/blue flashing is low battery when the system is first turned on, you can pump it down, it will turn to green and continue to function at least initially -eventually the battery will be too low. When you release the vacuum, it then flashes yellow then red. Not red/blue. I tried this just a day or two ago, my battery was due for replacement and it flashed red/blue when switched on, pumped down to green and when released went flashing yellow then red. Flashing red/blue anytime other than than this is something else, either a fault or resetting the system due to loss of power if the battery is low at the time. My manual says flashing red and red/blue is loss of vacuum, the guide linked above only mentions flashing red for loss of vacuum. It's clear from the behavior of my system that red/blue only happens when first switched on.

The red/blue flashing is supposed to be when you first turn it on only. My battery recently started flashing red/blue when I turn it on, I didn't replace the battery immediately. Pulled the vacuum, went for a dive, came back and dried housing to release vacuum and it only flashes red. The red/blue only happens when it first powers up, pulling the vacuum it goes yellow then green and when releasing turns yellow the red. I also note that when vacuum starts to drop when releasing vacuum, the initial response is flashing yellow, then flashing red when the vacuum is nearly gone. SO if you have a slow leak it should start flashing yellow first eventually changing to flashing red. If you are not getting yellow first a slow leak seems unlikely to me. Your water drops sound very much like water clinging to the o-ring, getting rid of them is near impossible, I run my blower along the seam to blow water out, but there's always some clinging to the o-ring and on the housing. I'm resigned to wiping it off then pulling the o-ring to shake dry and drying the groove every time I open up after a dive. What I am not clear about is the difference between flashing red and flashing red/blue in the table - the table says both are an issue with vacuum. I don't get red/blue flashing when releasing vacuum. You could get the red/blue coming on if you momentarily lose power, possibly an issue with the battery holder, the wiring or the switch, that would effectively re-boot the system and it would start red/blue flashing as if it just powered on. That one is a bit hard to test as you would need to be under vacuum and green then play with the wiring. Maybe see if shaking the housing a bit triggers anything??

First I think refer to instructions when diagnosing: Alternating blue and red is saying the vacuum has gone, but you report the the vacuum still present, indicating perhaps a problem with the pressure sensor. The moisture alarm is separate to this and is described on the previous page on my manual. It talks about testing the moisture alarm by shorting the two wires of the probe. The response to this is a loud alarm and a flashing red light - not a red/blue light. You're not mentioning hearing the alarm and not reporting the flashing red light so this says that the moisture alarm has not gone off, only the vacuum alarm. You need more than a drop or two to set it off unless it drops directly onto the little sensor. Basically it needs enough of a flood to cover the two wires and complete the circuit, something like 2-3mm in the housing base. That's not to say the drops of water aren't involved, perhaps the humidity or drops of water have made it onto the pressure sensor somehow? The sensor seems to be within the little black box of the alarm electronics, there is hole on the box which looks to me to be the sensing element. Reading up the sensing element doesn't seem particularly moisture sensitive, but condensation on the electronics may cause issues. Probably the most likely cause for a drop or two of water inside is water beading on the o-ring and stuck behind it when you open the housing. I always see a drop or three clinging to the o-ring and on the sealing surface when I open up. This is water that has beaded on the o-ring - the o-ring needs to be exposed to water pressure to seal and it will bead up the the o-ring and sealing surfaces. It is held inside the groove/joint by capillary forces. I always remove the o-ring and dry it off to make sure it doesn't get pushed into the housing when closing the clam shell type back,. Where exactly in the housing do you see the water drops - in the port, inside the housing itself or only along the o-ring sealing surfaces?

If you are freediving UW weight is likely to be important I would think. The Canon 8-15 is a nice solution, however with a small housing and dome it ends up quite heavy UW. I have an OM-1 in Nauticam and use the adapted 8-15 with 140mm dome and it has an UW weight of nearly 1.8kg. I use two Isotta float arms with 670 gr buoyancy each, they are 70mm dia x 220mm, so quite bulky and I'm still 400 gr negative. The Isotta housings are quite compact, however in certain combinations makes them quite heavy UW. This means large floats if want to get close to neutral.

The typhoon season is extended if the waters stay warm, this is what drives them , so not unexpected that late season typhoons are becoming common with warming oceans.

I assume you have tried it out for fit, I would expect the macro lens to work fine as is without accessories, vignetting seems unlikely with that sort of focal length. The power of a diopter generally reduces if it is mounted further from the lens, so magnification would drop a little, whether it introduces other issues is hard to predict. If you already have the lens you can always try it out before buying a new port. The port designation indicates the nominal port length 87 vs 80 as you saw with the Z lens having around 7mm gap comapred to the F mount 105mm. Looking at the port chart if you happened to have a Macro port 60 you should be able to add a 20mm tube to get the equivalent of the macro port80. The port chart actually lists the macro port 60 plus a 30mm tube for F mount 105mm - which would leave about a 3mm gap. For that combo they show the same magnification and working distance for use with an SMC-2 on both macro port 87 and the Macro port 60 plus 30mm extension. You are looking at a 7mm gap versus a 3mm gap which doesn't seem like it will change things much. There's some discussion on the MFO mounting in the thread about using the full or reduced range on the 90mm Sony macro, discussing an adapter that comes with the lens to screw it in.

On the Zeiss macro the main point would be to check if it has the same impact it does on the 90 macro. I only say this because others are reporting in this thread they are pleased with how the MFO is auto-focusing with the 90mm macro, plus Alex Mustard is using it as well, though maybe with the A1 rather than the A7RV. It's always possible your 90mm is playing up. on the focus limiter, second post of this topic says that is what you should do. Infinity focuses on something just over 1 meter away with the MFO according to the port chart.

Yes it seems significantly heavier than my setup, the backpacks are a similar size and weight mine being 65mm narrower. Mine is lasted at 2 kg empty so not a lot of weight that could be saved. I pack mine with camera/lenses/housings/ports and batteries only. Other bits and pieces including strobe arms etc go in the checked bag. My OM-1 + housing is 2.6 kg while the R7 is 2.85, a bit heavier but not that much. I think you had the Supe zD-pro strobes, they are double the weight of my Z240s, but I seem to be carrying more lenses and ports than you do.

I can see the argument about AF getting better with the MFO, but not sure how it could make things worse? I think you said the sharpness improvement was there so it seems to working as advertised there, but I'm not sure how it could cause the camera/lens combo to hunt and be slow to AF, I may to be totally missing something But I would look in the direction of the camera/lens more so than the MFO as it is "just" a mild diopter with air/water correction turned on. You could perhaps try it with the Sony 50mm macro - it is on the port chart for the Panasonic (m43) 45mm macro so you would think it would work on either of the 50mm macros to see if it degrades the AF there as well. The other question is if you popped the MFO off during the dive to see if the the bare 90mm was an improvement? Perhaps a good first approach would be to compare camera/AF settings with others using the 90mm/A7RV combo.