Chris Ross

The limiting factor for wet optics like the WWL is apparently entrance pupil size, so fast lenses often won't work well, i think someone quoted a filter size maximum as a general guide while back, have to wait and see if Nauticam test it or not. This is why a lot of the lenses on port charts are small kit lenses with relatively slow optics. Might be a possibilty with the WACP?

There are quite a few people using that combination on site - there was some discussion a while back I recall that the non pancake Panasonic 14-42 has the best optical quality and i also recall that at the long end the 14-42 lenses were a little soft compared to the wide end. The WWL at 130 degress is about equivalent to coverage of a 7mm rectiliear (14mm FF equivalent) across the horizontal axis and it has mild barrel distortion (fisheye effect), you don't get the strong distortion of a full frame fisheye which bring the subject forward and larger in the image. I considered the WWL but didn't end up going that way. You talk about macro performance, the WWL will focus all the way up to the glass and any degradation when doing that at the long end comes from the performance of the lens at the long end focusing close. Your alternative that is a a single lens solution is an adapted Canon 8-15, it is quite expensive, but has superb optical quality throughout the zoom range. It is doesn't quite have the reach of the WWL at the long end of the zoom range. It can be done with off the shelf parts in Isotta (and would be quite a bit cheaper) or you need a 3D printed adapter ring to use in a Nauticam system to use the zoom gear. In Nauticam the housing is quite heavy and needs a lot of buoyancy added. The downside is less reach at the long end, but if 28mm equivalent is enough it's a great option that gives you a full fisheye and 7-14 lens in a single package. and overlaps the first half of the 14-42/WWL combo. This topic shows some land based shots so you can how the lens performs:

for that specific case the MFO-1 might serve you well, as it basically just gives a small lick of magnification but pulls the focus range in. It would be more compact for sure. Otherwise a +5 diopter like the INON UCL-165, or that +3 diopter Alex Mustard used, which are much cheaper., but maybe not quite the image quality. I would think though that the MFO-3 would be nicely versatile with the 45mm macro giving you a 26mm approx equivalent FF lens.

I think the port placement for the 50mm lens going to be less critical than a wide angle lens, so if it works in the 140mm dome maybe stop there?. On the topic of ports, not sure if you already have the Marelux N120 adapter, the Nauticam N120 4.33" dome may be a good solution if you do, relatively expensive new, but second hand might an option?

Mike, sounds like it's not syncing for some reason. To test sync see if you can put the camera in second curtain sync and take a test shot in dark room so the shutter speed is round 1 second. In second curtain sync the flash fires at the end of the exposure not the beginning, so in doing this you should see the pre-flash followed by the main flash if it is working correctly. The only reason to do this is to separate the pre and main flash so you can see them. When you are doing this also check by looking into the lens that the aperture closes down when the photo is taken and compare the 9-18mm behaviour of when it stops down to your other lenses. You could also ask around to see if someone has one you can borrow to try. Do you have an Olympus flash you put in the hotshoe, even the little accessory one? Or borrow one? Test the OM-5 and 9-18 with that to see if exposes correctly. If it does the same thing with the little accessory flash see if you can find a physical store with the 9-18 in stock and see if they will let you try another copy of the lens. Did you buy the lens new? You can also call the OM service centre and talk to them, I found them quite helpful. For them to help though I suspect the problem would need to reproducible without the housing and your strobes involved.

I think it would only focus very close to the port so defeats the purpose. I guess you could use it in normal mode and also carry a closeup diopter if you want greater than 1:1.

In principle I think it would be an easy adapter to make, an alumium disc about 6-8mm thick On the OD a lip at the top OD about 135mm stepping down to 125mm. In the middle an 85mm hole. The only tricky part working out how to mate with lugs on the housing and the dome ports and index them so that the port stays vertical and the dome shade is correctly aligned. You could potentially forego the lugs and rely on the vacuum to hold the pieces in places- just rotate the dome to the correct position. The pressure force acting to hold a 125mm (5") dome in place with 200 mbar vacuum is about 55 pounds. If it was just for testing you could have a tab you could install from inside the housing to lock it in place if you wanted extra security. If it works out and you want to keep using then you could make lug rings you could bolt on the adapter later, similar to way Nauticam adds the rings to their ports. all this of course assumes you have access to a machine shop to do the need turning and machining.

I believe it was at Tanduk Rusa divesite, black sand slope and it was in a really large patch of the soft corals you can see in the background of the frame. May might be a stretch but you can ask the guides, they normally know if one has been seen recently.

I don't know if that is the way I would look at it. It gives the same field as the 12-40 at the long end but only focuses out to about 1.5m and you don't get the wide end. It has max 0.5x magnification, compared to 0.3x with the 12-40. Also it's not like a 30/45mm with wet lens, the magnification is limited not increased. So basically it's all about being able to shoot larger subjects with a lot less water between you and the subject when on a macro dive. In theory you could use a 30mm macro to do the same job, but in practice the max magnification you can practically use is about 0.5x as you lose working distance and ability to light your subject.

I just put up a new post with my thoughts and some sample images from this week's diving.

Starting a new thread to do a quick review of using the MFO-3 with the Olympus 60mm macro. The 60mm is commonly used on m43 setups as the usual macro lens, it's quite sharp and AF is quite good on later bodies but it's a bit on the long side at 120mm FF equivalent, so larger subjects require backing up a lot with a lot of extra water in the way along with all the particles to make backscatter. The MFO3 reduces the field from that of a 60mm lens to about 37 mm focal length increasing diagonal field from 20 to 33 degrees. I used it for the first time in Lembeh Strait this week, popping it on to shoot things like Lionfish, anemone fish and other larger subjects like big cuttlefish. The extra field of view is significant and allows you to shoot these subjects with a lot less water between you and the subject. I found the field to be quite sharp into the corners when reviewing on my laptop and the subject really was very sharp. AF was pretty snappy as well. In Lembeh where you might be shown a tiny emperor shrimp followed immediately by a 200mm long scorpion fish or cuttlefish it was really very useful, in fact I'd say it was indispensable. I carried in a pocket on a pair of cargo shorts complete with bayonet mount and found it easy to get out but a bit trickier to get back in with one hand. I took the supplied neoprene pouch on the boat and after rinsing stored it in there to stop it drying out. some examples: Weedy Rhinopia - slight crop: A False clown anemone fish, I would normally crop and get in closer but this shows the sharpness across the frame: A Trumpetfish which was about 500mm long : A zebra lionfish, cropped slightly: Hopefully this gives some idea what the lens can do. The only real downside is the bulk of the lens, it a big lump but easy to use with bayonet mount. The pics were chosen to show the versatility I found. Lens supplied by Scubapix, the Australian Nauticam distributor it was from the first batch imported. I paid for the lens my myself. Let me know if you have any questions, hope the review is useful for those considering it.

i have the lens not the port, i expect it will work just as well on any lens that works with it.

yes, watch this space, I'm diving with it all this week, I'll post something when I get time in the dive schedule. Performs quite well so far.

Everyone has their own price points they are willing to pay, for me personally, I've been using PS for 25 years+ and apart from RAW converter updates I can do most of the tricks that Adobe introduces with the tools I have in my version. I recall that their updates were getting progressively less compelling and they in fact held back things like support for high res monitors until after they introduced the subscription model, lots of people swore off them on the forums I frequented back then. Of course not everyone has that skill set and if they choose to subscribe, it's up to them entirely. For me I only ever used PS, never lightroom, apparently it's getting closer now but from talking to people the PS tools area easier to use than LR. For me exercising those skills makes me feel like the photo is more my creation - or something like that. Not disparaging anyone who chooses to subscribe, just letting people know what is possible without all the AI tools etc.

Thanks all, went to a physical store and tried out the cargo shorts, they go over the top of your suit. The big pockets hold the MFO-3 with the bayonet adapter on easily. I'm going to give them a go. The thigh pocket also fitted but the edge of the lens caught on the inside part of the closure clip. This is them: https://www.wilderness.net.au/Scubapro-Hybrid-Pockets-Shorts.html?srsltid=AfmBOorUA5DI_eTaKJuYI9pvj7mJ160dzx8Pus3gFdTRJs6X439kqPJ5 They might be a little short for the LSD. The MFO 3 is a big lump - 90mm OD at the top and 120mm long, so not a typical diopter. The bayonet adapter is 95mm diameter.

Nice work on all of them, those wolf eels look great, the SE Australian reefs are suffering from urchin overun as well, they eat all the kelp. The warm current coming down from up north has gotten stronger and allows them to spread south. They are starting an industry to harvest them which promise to keep them in check.

It's still a good skill to have and I can do it without subscribing to Adobe. I use the tools like this a lot to cleanup focus stacks so get a fair bit of practice.

It's actually quite possible to remove the reflections with basic cloning tools. I use the old PS CS6 and the blue water reflections went instantly with spot healing brush and the reflections on the arms I could do with the cloning tool (non smart, just has a feathering adjustment.) If you are working with a straight cloning tool the secret is to zoom right in and start where the reflection crosses the edges of the arms. The tool provides a preview of what it will do - align the tool on the edge and alt-click to select the source then move to where you want to clone and move up and down till the edge and the cloned edge align and click. I use a Wacom tablet for this - makes it very easy to do. A lot of the ease for this kind of work comes from the sequences you need to perform to precisely select the clone source. I haven't used GIMP for a long time and not sure how it works but the PS sequence is very intuitive. Here is the cleaned version - took me all of 5 minutes and included cleaning off the outline you drew over the arms to show what can be done with basic tools:

I would think that any repair on the other end would best be done from the outside. Any time you are doing waterproofing any sort of barrier is generally laid from the wet side, that way the water pressure pushes it on rather than the pressure acting to lift the layer of water proofing away from the surface. Cleaning up and getting a good key down inside the float would also be a potential issue. You could glue on some waterproofing tape over the seam perhaps? something like this: https://www.bunnings.com.au/t-rex-50mm-x-1-5m-strong-waterproofing-tape_p0088307 might look ugly? but could be vaiable solution though it may not be permanent. Having said all that given you are spending $$$ on a dive trip the cost of some new arms would be good insurance I think. Dive centre Bondi would likely have the INON float arms in stock if the buoyancy they provide suits. I use the 390GR lift arms and have been happy with them.

Anyone who has been using the MFO3, how are you carrying it around? I looked into getting a dock for a float arm, but it's a fairly big lump for there and there's no stock held right now. I'm off on a dive trip in a few days to Lembeh and I'm bringing it along. Other thoughts are a pair of those tec-cargo shorts with the big pockets - but seems like it's tight fit in there or I see Scubapro sells a thigh pocket but again I'm not sure it's big enough. I'm not sure I want to use a flip holder for it - seems like it's asking for trouble getting in and out over the rocks at home in Sydney? Other options or suggestions?

The WWL-1 is designed to use with 28mm lenses min and the WWL-C 24mm and at shorter than design focal lengths they will vignette. However they are designed to produce the same field of 130° diagonal field at their designed minimum focal length. This means they have different magnifications, the WWL-1 is about 0.35x while the WWL-C is about 0.41x to both achieve 130° diagonal at the widest, which happens at 28mm and 24mm focal length respectively. With the higher magnification of the WWL-C it has slightly more reach on the long end. if we are looking at the 24-50 lens, it will vignette between 24 and 28mm focal length with the WWL-1, while the WWL-C will work over the full zoom range of the 24-50mm.

It was mentioned above that Retra would not make adapter for HF-1 and backscatter had abadoned. The point I was trying to make is you probably pick up some light compared by what you can achieve from the strobe with diffusers when snooting even before you get a little closer with the strobe, I raise it as it seems others get the snoot to work with small apertures and ISO around 200. Or is your concern not being able to do regular lighting (non snoot) on the same dive with two MF-2 strobes?

I'm only quoting people who have used both this setup and the WACP-C. They have switched over to mostly using the fisheye zoom. The thing is that the Sony 28-60 is an OK lens while the Canon 8-15 is an exceptionally sharp lens that behaves well behind domes. Here is a link: and again in this post:

Hi Wolfgang, I know everyone has to make their own quality decisions, but the downgrade in quality going to ISO200 is typically very small. Also I would suggest that what we were trying to convey is that with snooting you should have enough light due to using the centre of the beam and being a lot closer - only for snooting. You could potentially dive with your HF-1s for non snoot images and have the MF2 on another arm or piggy backed to use just for snooting, but you would have to work out a triggering arrangement. Or you could use one HF-1 and one MF-2 and use the HF-1 for non snoot as a single strobe. I know a lot of people who only use a single strobe for macro and they produce nice images. It sounds like there is no snoot you can buy (as opposed to printing) for the HF-1??

Your other option for whale swims, assuming you are on Sony is an adapted Canon 8-15 with a Sony 2x, reported to be as good as the WACP-C and Sony 28-60. Configuration is Camera - Sony 2x - Metabones adapter (V5 or newer in think) then the 8-15. It works very well in a 140mm dome. You get a fisheye able to zoom into the equivalent of a 28mm lens. The barrel distortion lessens as you zoom in to be similar to what you get from a WWL/WACP setup. The advantage is the small dome, disadvantage, depending on housing fairly negative in bouyancy. it doesnt have quite as much reach but it's close to the other options.