Troporobo

I remember reading about this at the time. Such a cool story!

Thanks to you also for a smooth transaction!

SOLD

I don’t know a lot about sensor technology, but in my limited understanding, making the photocells smaller to cram more of the into the same space would have the side effect of making them less sensitive and thus raise the effective ISO and noise. Certainly doing so would be more costly. Maybe someone with more smarts could expound on those points.

Welcome neighbor! I’m on one of the islands to the north of you, although having learned at Edmonds I’m no longer a cold water diver. Still, the Salish Sea is a wonderful place to dive

Still available. Make me an offer!

I’m also on Team m4/3. IQ is good enough for my purposes, recognizing that it’s not in the same league as the best full frame sensors. But the compact size and weight seals the deal for me. It’s brilliant for travel and all day use on land. I shoot wildlife and can hike all day with a 100-400 lens hanging off my shoulder, something with more reach and a lot less pain than its FX equivalent. By the way, the size of the sensor is literally in its name. Making it “bigger” would make it no longer m4/3 and would require a new lens lineup.

This topic arises so often that this list should be pinned to the top of the techniques section. For those beginners with shorter attention spans, online articles can be useful to explain the basics. I found the following sites to contain very useful resources. I’m sure that there are others. http://www.divephotoguide.com/underwater-photography-techniques/ https://www.opticaloceansales.com/underwater-photography-guides/ http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/  http://www.underwaterphotography.com/

Very nice! The music and editing really complemented your sequences. Thanks for sharing.

Great idea, and well executed. I like it!

As they say in certain churches (and UW photography is a religion, no?) “Can I get an AMEN?!” I probably spend more time agonizing over what to keep, before finally accepting that it’s a small proportion, than I do editing. Then it’s very simple adjustments and minor crops. You guys with the import settings, what’s a good starting point for contrast, clarity, and dehaze? Do you do anything up front about saturation or vibrance? I know it’s camera dependent, but . . .

Great shots Chris! You did an excellent job isolating them from the background, which is often so difficult with well camouflaged critters that stay close to their habitat. I’d like to hear something about your lighting technique on these. Also, how big are they?

Very nice results with that combo!

This wide angle combination is for m4/3 cameras and housings using Nauticam N85 ports. The lens is in excellent condition with no scratches or blemishes anywhere. The dome port is #36133 and is in very good condition with no scratches on the port and only minor scuffing on the bottom of the hood. Lens and port caps, neoprene cover, zoom ring included. Both items in original packaging. New prices total about $1400. Asking $700 with domestic USA shipping included. International shipping might be possible, I'd have to investigate first.

I bought a lens and port from TonyF. It was a very smooth and pleasant transaction, the items were carefully packed, and arrived as described. Thanks Tony!

Lots of reports, as recent as 2023. Just search “shark attack tiger beach bahamas”

Great photos. I’m sure it was fun. But . . . I’m not usually one to rain on anyone’s parade, but I can’t believe they’re still running those dives. Once sharks learn that boat + splash = food, I don’t want to be the splash! And Tiger Beach has enough history of attacks and fatalities to keep me away for good. I’m not afraid of sharks in general and am always thrilled to see them under natural conditions. But I won’t go near a baited operation. Rant over.

Yep, I’m familiar with that aspect, I had the Panasonic 7-14mm lens and experienced it when shooting on land. Apparently some Panasonic lenses don’t play well with Olympus bodies. Thanks a lot for that example, it’s exactly what I needed to see.

Thanks guys. FWIW my understanding of “de-fishing” is that it could tidy up obviously distorted rectilinear elements such as a piling or passage on a wreck while preserving some of the extra field of view. I do get the point that it’s not necessary for reef scenic. I’m very interested to see what happens with CFWA subjects in the foreground. Clearly I have a lot of learning and experimentation ahead, which is of course a large part of the fun!

Well, serendipity has answered the question for me. While researching the topic, I came across one of the alternatives for sale nearby at a great price, so I’m going to start out with a Panasonic 8mm FE and the tiny Nauticam 4.33” dome port. I figured it will be an inexpensive way to get started in CFWA and see how I like it - which usually means the upgrade itch will come in the future! Next I’ll need to learn Lightroom processing tips for the fisheye lens, specifically “de-fishing”. Any tips?

Thanks again to all for the useful discussion. There’s a lot of daydream fuel here!

Wolfgang - Thanks for the additional resources. I had seen one of Massimo’s articles based on your work but not the other. That arrangement seems a bit more complicated than I want, notwithstanding the great IQ results. Congrats on working it out! Chris - Would you expect that the 140mm dome is workable for CFWA? My experience with a 150mm dome suggests it would get in the way for targets tucked into the reef. Though admittedly those scenarios rarely yield the best compositions. Cheers to you both, Robert

Wolfgang, would you say that this combination can focus very close to the glass? And display the port need an extension? Thanks all for the ideas!

Close focus wide angle is something I’ve been wanting to gear up for a long time now. With an impending move to a great wide angle locale but an enduring obsession with macro photography, now is the time. Disclaimer: I shoot with the Olympus EM-1 mk II and will keep it until OM Systems comes out with something significantly improved. I’m not interested in moving to another format even if it would guarantee production of regular contest winners. I use the camera on land and travel frequently and so the size and weight are optimal for me. Ideally the new setup will perform well at both CFWA and reef scenic. I do not anticipate using it much for blue water pelagics. I understand my options as follows. (1) I have the excellent Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 Pro lens and could put it behind a 170mm dome. I haven’t been able to find out how close this will focus so unsure of potential for CFWA. That dome might also work for the 12-40mm lens although that’s not a focal range I’d use often. (2) The Panasonic 8mm f3.5 FE or the reportedly excellent Olympus 8mm f1.8 Pro lenses can be housed behind either a 4.33” or 140 mm dome, but I haven’t found info about the advantages of one vs the other. I have read that either will focus right at the glass of the smaller dome for CFWA but don’t know how one or the other fare at traditional WA or behind the larger dome. (3) Adapt the excellent Canon 8-15mm FE behind a 4.33” port as suggested by Alex Mustard in comments to one of his recent videos. Same questions as #2 (4) FWIW I have tried the Panasonic 7-14 behind a 150mm dome and it will neither focus closely nor produce acceptable edges. It’s Ok for scenarios like blue water pelagics where the edges are not critical. Im leaning toward a FE and small port despite my unfounded bias against fisheye distortion. OK, I’m ready for your thoughts! TIA

Thanks Chris. That’s another viable workflow that I think could work for me