Architeuthis

Best solution when staying with Zuiko 8mm ... 👍 And when you counterbalance the gain from selling the N120 version, it will be little money in summary...

The advice from Cris is very good. Tokina 10-17mm or Canon 8-15mm. Same IQ compared to Zuiko 8mm, but much better versatility. It comes, however, at a cost (I believe it is worth every cent), maybe the price is comparable (the speedbooster is not cheap), but you can count together the current price of items by yourself... Another possibility is, that you do not need an extension as short as 17mm and, in practice, it could be somewhat longer. I was using e.g., the Zuiko 8mm with the 34.7mm N85/N120 adapter, as well as with a custom made 30mm N85/N120 adapter with the Nauticam 140mm domeport, with very good results (the extension recommended by Nauticam is 30mm). Theoretically there should be no difference between 140mm and 100mm domeports regarding extensions, since both are hemispheres (but there may be a difference in practice)... Wolfgang

A drawback is that it is manual focus only...

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/first-image-of-the-new-laowa-af-180mm-f4-5-1-5x-apo-and-12mm-f-2-8-zero-d/

nomfo4 is way sharper - it seems that mfo4 is not in focus... Anyway I am thankful for these interesting comparison shots...👍

Thanks for posting the images...👍👍👍 The difference is really small, according to my subjective judgement. When I look directly on the screen, the lower one looks a little bit more contrasty (could be easily changed with LR in postprocessing with one of the contrast sliders). When I download the images and magnify them on my screen, the upper one shows a little bit more detail... Which lens was used (camera was OM-1?)? => Now I would like to have someone post similar comparisons with the Sony 90mm macro and FF... Wolfgang

I have a question regarding the EMWL relay unit: when one does not mount this acessory "relay" unit and just uses the "focusing" unit and the "objective lens", what kind of inversion does the image in the EVF show: (i) upside down, (ii) mirror image or both (i)&(ii)? Thanks, Wolfgang

Yes, please show all the images...

When travel weight is the primary concern, also WWL-1B with flatport and 28-60mm lens may be an option, probably the lightest combo for Sony FF (For Nikon Z a standard zoom lens exists, that allows to use the lighter WWL-C). FOV of WWL-1B, however, remains the same compared to WACP-C (when I travel with my WACP-C, I always take the Canon 8-15mm/140mm domeport/N100-N120 adapter with me in addition, for the really wide WA)... Maybe the Tamron 17-28mm with Zen DP170 (plus N100/N120 adapter and extensions) comes also into this weight range (I did not count the grams so far), but FOV is not extremely wide either at the short end... It is certainly impossible to take all this in the cabin with handluggage. Domeports, WACP-C, extensions/adapters go to the check-in lugagge and we (two UW photographers) have always two additional suitcases ("diving" luggage) of check-in luggage. When we go with little airplanes to small islands, we have to book an extra-seat for the additional luggage with the airline. Of course, when some check-in luggage gets delayed or even lost, this is a problem, certainly on the arrival-trip...

Barmaglot has already linked treads with plenty of information... I have Sony A7R5 and use it with 28-60mm/WACP-C, Canon 8-15mm (with and w/o Kenko and Sony 1.4x and 2x TCs; now I use it predominantly with Sony 2x TC when longer focal lengths are needed) and can say something, but it is from from my subjective experience, I do not make optical benchmark tests UW: "1) will changing to this be a dent on image quality?": IQ of the pure Canon 8-15mm fisheye lens is at least as good as the 28-60/WACP-C combo, even a bit sharper. Together with the 2x Sony TC the Canon 8-15mm provides very similar IQ, compared to the 28-60/WACP-C combo (maybe WACP-C is a bit better at 28mm, but gets a bit less sharp at 60mm). "2) is the mini dome viable and a decent option? Primary consideration is the weight savings. However I do see the 140mm glass dome recommended more.": I just used 140mm glass dome on FF. My wife is using 100mm glass dome together with the Tokina 10-17mm/0.71x speedbooster on MFT (Oly EM1II). Both give very good results in IQ. I did not use 100mm glass on FF, but several people write that this is a bad compromise for FF (most use it just for specialiced photis as very CFWA, but I find 140mm also very good for this). The acryl dome should not be different from glass, just the radius matters, except some flair when photos are made against the sun and acryl is much more prone to scratching (one does not see minimal scratches in most pohotos, but when photos are made against the sun these minimal scratches can show up without mercy). "3) what is the equivalent field of view at the 15mm end? can I still get normal rectilinear wide angle shots? I know the 8mm end is a full circular fish eye.": At 15mm you get 180° diagonal FOV with a fisheye on FF. When using the 2x Sony TC, you start with 16mm (approx. 170°, what is pretty wide) and end with 30mm (approx. 85°). This compares to 130° at 28mm up to 68° at 60mm for the WACP-C combo. I, personally, do not miss the 85°-68° range of the WACP-C, since the working distance is already often too large to give good IQ at this long range. On the other side, I permanently miss the range wider than 130° when I am with the WACP-C combo. The WACP-C does not give rectilinear optics, but it gives fisheye look. Just more moderate fisheye look, just as longer focal length fisheye lenses do. I, personally, do not like extreme rectilinear WA UW. The Sony 20-70mm in 170mm WA dome is enough for me regarding rectilinear WA (Tamron 17-28mm is also very good, but zoom range is limited). When wider, rectilinear lenses produce extreme elongations towards the edges that I do not like at all (I also have Laowa 10mm that behaves o.k. behind the 140mm glass dome, but used it only for two dives, I really dislike the optics towards the edges)... "4) anything else I should consider?": you could also consider the FCP-1 that gives similar FOVs as the Canon 8-15mm with 2x Sony TC behind 140mm dome, but I am not aware about strict tests that compare the optical IQ of both FCP-1/28-60mm and 8-15mm/2x SonyTC/140mm domeport (I believe the difference in IQ must be small, since some professionals still prefer the WACP-1 over the FCP-1 (because of IQ), when FOVs wider than 130° are not required)... Wolfgang

In the new UwP144 (May/June), there is a review about MFO-1 (with Sony 90mm macro): https://www.uwpmag.com/ Just a repetition of what has been already told/advertised: works nice, a little more magnification, better IQ and better AF, but still no side by side demonstration of the improved IQ... In case somebody here has the MFO-1 on a flip holder it would be really great to see comparable photos with and w/o MFO-1...

Looks good to me. Color temp is maybe a bit cold... 👍 Just out of curiosity, I checked the price: very well priced in Europe (899 Euro) vs. almost twice in US (1699$): https://www.backscatter.com/AOI-Ultra-InTeLi-Underwater-Strobe-UIS-P1 Onderwaterhuis BasisAOI UIS-P1 Ultra InTeLi StrobeThis compact innovative new underwater strobe from AOI features a ring flash tube, COB light and supports both Sony TTL and OM System RC and manual exposure. .. => US customers probably better wait, I have the impression that the tax regulations are changing daily (hopefully tax will return to normal soon)...

Here correct strobe positioning is discussed in detail: https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Underwater-Photography-Masterclass-Alex-Mustard/dp/1781452229 Also here: https://www.lehmanns.de/shop/sachbuch-ratgeber/50180970-9781138123588-the-underwater-photographer Wolfgang

What is the reason for replacing the battery cap? Corrosion or a leaking overpressure valve?

P.S.: when diving in the ocean, you can easily discriminate between condensation and leak by tasting the few droplets inside the housing...

I have encountered similar problems with all my Nauticam housings/moisture-detector over the years (EM5II, EM1II and A7R5): The housings for EM5II and EM1II were purchased second hand. Very reproducible the moisture alarm went on just after pumping "in" the vacuum 😄, when the housing was assembled in conditions of high humidity (e.g. in a ship's belly or in the tropics at 100% humidity). This was really annoying and I solved this by clipping off one wire that leads to the moisture detector (= two open contacts that are connected upon becoming wet) and making the "detector" thereby less sensitive. There is a tread about this in the old forum, but I just cannot find it right now... I did not encounter the same problem (= moisture alarm without water drops in the housing, just caused by high humidity) so far with my A7R5 housing, which I bought new. There was a similar problem, when the 140mm domeport became foggy in a cold mountain lake during two dives on the same day, the alarm stood green and did not indicate water or even moiusture. I found about 2 tea spoons of water inside the housing afterwards (the water was inbetween extension and domeport, not directly in the housing). Since the housing was assembled in a heated room and temperatures outside and in the lake were very low, the condensation formed from the water that entered the housing via the leak. The water ingression was probably formed via an old-style N120 extension, were Nauticam had fixed an essential mechanical part with just one screw (instead of four) and this single screw had become loose, but I did not notice (also tread in old forum: https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71358-dimensions-of-screws-for-nauticam-n120-extensions/&tab=comments#comment-453113)... => In principle all of the scenarios you mention are possible. When moisture alarm goes on, just after applying the vacuum and assembly in high humidity, it is likely 4). But then there is probably no water inside detectable, it is just moisture... When there is a miniscule leak (as was the case with my A7R5), there is little water inside (but the neither moisture alarm nor vacuum alarm reacted in my case, because the water was far away from the detector)... Wolfgang

Here you can compare test photos made with both lenses and judge by yourself: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1525&Camera=1175&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1012&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

The final IQ will depend on the combination of lenses and also TCs used (e.g. Nikon/Canon, Kenko DGX/HD/Sony, WACP-2/1/C; WWL-C)... My personal experience (Sony A7R5; WACP-C; Sony 28-60mm; Kenko 1.4x DGX; Kenko 2x HD Pro; Sony 1.4x TC; Sony 2x TC) is that IQ is pretty similar between WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm and Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2x TC/140mm domeport (but not so when I use the 2x Kenko Pro HD or the Kenko 1.4x DGX (the Kenko 1.4x DGX is clearly worse in IQ compared to the Sony 2x TC)). I find that both WACP-C and 8-15mm FE are very well able to do CFWA. I believe that the different AOVs, at comparable diagonal AOV, are similar, if not the same, between WACP and FE unlike the difference between FE and rectilinear... => In any case I would go for the Kenko 1.4x Pro HD TC that has clearly better IQ with Canon 8-15mm compared to the Kenko DGX version (there is somewhere a tread here with example photos made with this lens and both TCs) The Canon 8-15mm/2xTC offers, for me personally, a much better diagonal AOV at the wide end (180°), compared to the 130° of the WACP, what I find often too narrow. At the narrow end the 8-15mm/2x is 85°, what I find more than plenty: when I was e.g. making photos of moderately shy sharks with WACP-C I finally dumped the photos made with the WACP-C/@60mm, since there was just too much water inbetween and the more seldom photos made at wider AOVs were, of course, much better... My personal strategy is as follows: #1.: When I am going for real WA, I take just the Canon 8-15mm/140mm domeport (shade removed) and can switch between 180° and occasional circular fisheye. Smallest rig and excellent IQ. #2.: When I want also to zoom in (AOVs in the range of WACP), I mount the Sony 2x TC and an additional 20mm extension. IQ comparable to WACP but smaller rig. For future travelling, I am already considering to leave the monstrous WACP-C at home (transporting WACP-C vs. Sony 2xTC plus 20mm N120 extension)... Wolfgang

Would a second MF-2, without snoot, also do the job for you?

Great rig... I guess you using the HF-1 as second macro strobe because you need sometimes more light output (e.g. for backlighting)?

I thank you all for the great input...👍 => I just have ordered a second MF-2 (plenty of combinations with up to 4 strobes now possible, also for WA)... 😊 Probably I will go for such a detachable arm also, looks very practical...

Thank you for the valuable answer...👍 What camera are you using? Is also HSS working and if yes, does it have enough light? Can you please give a link to the "quick release"? Thank you, Wolfgang

I am currently using two Backscatter HF-1 flashes with my FF rig (A7R5). I have an additional MF-2 with snoot for occasional snooting, but currently I use the HF-1s as main flashes, also for macro (Sony 90mm macro with and w/o SMC-1). The HF-1 is a great flash but since they are big and heavy, positioning for macro is suboptimal, the small and light MF-2s would be much better in this respect... Is there someone who is using two MF-2 flashes for macro and can write about the experience with a FF rig? Are there macro techniques where the power of two MF-2s is not sufficient? (I am thinking of acquiring a second MF-2 and then use two MF-2 as main flashes for macro and let the HF-1s at the surface then (maybe a single off-camera HF-1 for special occasions)) Thanks, Wolfgang

Maybe it is worth to take the strobe UW, for the first dive after the leak, without batteries and some paper towels inside... (In case the leak is via the pressure relieve valve, it will be almost impossible to detect this by inspection)

I think I remember that there are people that use the Canon 8-15mm via EF-mount to Nikon Z converter on Nikon Z cameras. I am using Canon 8-15mm with Metabones EF-mount to Sony E-mount converter on Sony A7R5. Both Kenko and native Sony 1.4x as well as 2x TCs can be used, since the Metabones adapter provides the space for the extrusion of the native Sony TCs. When using the native Sony TCs instead of Kenko the required extensions are shorter (because of the protrusion). Most important, IQ should be at least as good as with the Kenko HD Pro TCs. Especially with the Sony 2x TC, IQ is clearly better compared to the Kenko 2x HD Pro TC and also better than Kenko 1.4x TC (but I have only the Kenko DGX 1.4x TC, not the better HD version). I cannot see a difference in IQ, when I compare the Sony1.4x... => This is specific for the Canon 8-15mm, the Nikon 8-15mm may well behave different when used with the Sony TCs (I also do not know whether the Sony TCs, Z cameras and EF-mount to SOny E-mount converters are, electronically, compatible; maybe someone checked already out?)... Wolfgang