Architeuthis

This, and other native Sony FE (zoom) fisheye lenses, look great, since they are smaller compared to the adapted Canon 8-15mm. The question to me is, however, whether they accept TCs and if yes, whether they provide acceptable IQ...

You say that this technology changes little for photography, but would it not be a hughe benefit against the blown out sunballs in WA photos?

I have never owned a MFO-1, but I am/was using adapted Canon 100mm IS macro/Sony 90mm macro/Sony 100mm macro on the Sony A7RV. Even with the adapted Canon 100mm macro AF was o.k, but a liga below the native lenses. AF is great both with Sony 90mm and Sony 100mm on this camera body, but there were several complaints that AF is slow/pumping on Sony A7RIV and downwards. AF may be even better with A7RVI and it should be on par with A7RV on the A7RC, but I did not use this camera ever... In the MFO-1 portchard (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YcKS767I57nPedgq5vG3WVlElsp3XVLF/view) the Sony 28-60mm is not listed as compatible/tested, probably not useful for this lens (AF from the model A7RV upwards is very capable without any special diopters, however) I started by using the back LCD on my first UW camera, an Olympus EM5II (and previously the Panasonic TZ5 and Olympus EPL-7 from my wife). Upon upgrading to EM1II, I got a 45° viewfinder together with the second hand Nauticam housing. Since then I greatly enjoy using it (also now with Sony A7RV). It helps a lot in getting a slightly upwards from the bottom perspective without bending body and neck too much... I would not switch back to a plastic housing these days (e.g. like the initial Panasonic and Olympus housings of my wife, that I could use occasionally). My first alu housing (EM5II) was Nauticam (at this time very good quality (what is still the case) at a low price (unfortunately not valid any more)). Since then I use Nauticam. I presumably will not switch to Isotta or Marelux upon updating to a newer camera model, since (i) I know Nauticam as reliable and very ergonomic (I cannot say about the other brands, I never used one) and (ii) when switching to another brand I would have to deal with adapters for my other gear, i.e. (dome)ports, extensions, wetlenses, that is more expensive than just a bare housing ...

According to the Nauticam portcharts, the Sony 28-60mm behind Nauticam N100 45 flat port gives up to 0,9x magnification and working distances between 55-80mm with CMC-1, while CMC-2 gives up to 0,7x and distances of 83-135mm (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1caMOa2cyCxucdcAiI8q9UsUu1YEg9ImC/view) In addition, 28mm is probably the widest what one would want behind a flat port. (I use Sony 28-60mm behind WACP-C, but never used it behind a flat port and/or with diopters, so what I say is theoretical)...

Here is the assortment of different camera types that Sony offers, it seems pretty logical to me: #1.: Entry-level model class, very capable and universal: A7 Five generations exist at present, from original to mark 5 (A7V) #2.: Highest resolution and IQ, totally photocentric, not so good for video and fast action/sports: A7R At present in its sixth generation (A7RVI, which made a leap towards video and action, but still not the best for this purpose) #3.: High end allround model, high IQ for photo, fast action (e.g. birding) and good for video: A1 At present in its second generation (A1II) #4.: Specialized model series for fast action/sports: A9 Currently in its third generation, A9III, that has even global shutter (=zero rolling shutter and no limit to flash sync. speed) #5.: Compact series: A7C and A7CR Providing similar features as #1 (A7CII) and #2 (A7CR) in a compact camera body In addition they offer different types of camera bodies that are designed for videographers...

"The only purpose of the dives is to photograph fish, and to capture them. Usually I take a picture, and then I try to catch the photographed fish (with chemicals and handnets - then my camera, attached to me, floats above my shoulder - it needs positive buoyancy). I am diving in NE Atlantic and Medit. Viz can be good, or much lower than 2m... " In this case (catching the fish after the photo, that is just intended for documentation) a hughe setup, providing the best IQ, may not be ideal (but it could work in case there is a colleague to help out (e.g. holding the hughe setup while catching the fish and holding the catching gear (and the already caugth fish) while making the photo)?). A compact setup (e.g. A7CR/Sony 28-60mm/CMC-1) with a single, TTL operated, compact flash is probably better suited to do the job. Flash mounted close to the housing (suboptimal lightening, but compact). A7CR certainly fulfils the requirement of better AF and (much) more resolution compared to most cameras and certainly compared to an old compact camera as the G5 is... There are comprimizes with very small and also the large fish, but one can crop for the small fishes... On special occasions, one could even deviate from the universal concept and mount Sony 100mm macro/SMC-3 (on flip) for small fish or a water contact optics (e.g. WWL-1) for large ones, in order to get better IQ?

The argument that Fred may be shocked by the size/weight of a FF macro setup with double flip is very valid - so better have a close look at the different setups in real life and get the hands on them before making a decision... (I should ad that during my life as a scientist, I was a biophysicist/molecular biologist and fish documentation was never my target; I am, however, sure I would choose A7R6/100mm macro setup (and Sony 16-35 GMII with Seacam PPO for fish >35cm). Even now, with 70 years of age and beeing a hobbyist UW photographer, I am strong enought to lug around my FF setup without wailing 🤣)... When setup size is compared, my personal experience is the opposite to what you are writing (MFT (Oly EM1II) vs. FF (Sony A7R5); I cannot tell about APS-C from my own experience, so others should comment): #1.: I can say that the big difference in size and weigth is in the macro setup (both Nauticam housings: EM1II/Zuiko 60mm is perfectly small, smart and light, whereas A7R5/Sony 100mm is the biggest/most monstrous setup I ever handled (- but with best IQ ever)) #2.: For moderate WA (fishportrait): size/weigth difference between EM1II/Zuiko 12-40mm pro/Zen DP170 and A7R5/Sony20-70mm G/Zen DP170 is small. Both deliver excellent IQ. #3.: More WA (not requested by Fred): similar with EM1II/Canon 8-15mm/Nauticam 140mm dome vs. Sony A7R5/Canon 8-15mm/2xTC/Nauticam 140mm dome. I see no essential difference, but fisheye is not the lens of choice for scientific documentation. Better take rectilinear WA: EM1II/Pana 7-14mm/Zen DP170 vs. A7R5/Tamron 17-28mm/Zen DP170 - pretty similar in size and weight (I would, however take A7R5/Sony 16-35mm GM2/Seacam PPO for that purpose (rectilinear best IQ with low aperture number))... Fred's complaints (with G5 and a single D200 strobe) are better AF, bigger sensor (why?) and more resolution. Maybe he wants one small setup to do it all, similar to the G5 compact setup... Then Sony A7CR/Sony 28-60mm/CMC-1(WWL-1) may be the setup that meets his requirements best, with similar photography experience comparable to the compact camera? There is, however, no free lunch and fish from 10mm to 70cm will always be a (pretty flawed) compromise with a single lens setup. To have both categories at best IQ (and long enough working distance, what is certainly important for scientific documentation) requires ILCE with different lenses/ports... Of course two capable TTL flashes are the most important upgrade, even when continuing with compact camera...

For small and shy critters the capability of the Sony 100mm GM f/2.8 to work with TC's (1,4x and 2x) is another benefit: magnification as well as working distance is increased proportinally when TCs are used - with TCs at a species-appropriate working distance even cropping may not be required... Only the very best for scientific documentation (and the setup fits the budget too)! (I must admit that in my former life I have been a scientist, hence comes this inclination)...😆

From the setups you are considering, I would go for A7R VI + 100mm macro + MFO-3 (+ possibly MFO-1 on double flip): MFO-1 will not bring much, but with SMC-3 (2,4x magnification) instead, a 10mm fish will fill approx. 68% of the width of the photo (i.e. approx. 36mm). With the bare 100mm lens (1,4x) a 10mm fish will fill approx 39% of the photos width... Concerning FF vs. crop sensor, you can crop the photos made with the 67 Mpixel sensor also in postprocessing to the dimensions of APS-C or MFT without any loss of IQ (in case you do not mind the big setup)... In case size matters, I would go for MFT with Zuiko 60mm +/- MFO-3 (CMC-1 is required only when very small objects are going to be photographed)...

What you describe is exactly the situation for many macro photos... In many WA photos, however, shutter speed, aperture and ISO are adjusted to give enough ambient light for the background, otherwise the photo may look as beeing from a nightdive (when everything is mostly lit by the flash(es)). Flashe(es) are normally only able to light the foreground object(s)... When a little deeper, even in very clear waters and sunshine (not to speak about our lakes)), the camera settings come soon to their borders to give a pleasant background (motion blurr, corner sharpness, noise and sometimes even dynamic range)...

The focus light is seldom visible in the photo. Especially when using red focus light it can be distracting, however. There are plenty of lighths in different strengths available with "Auto-Off" function. I do not see a reason to acquire one without this function... I have the precursor of the WeeFine 2600 Smartfocus lamp (I think it is now WeeFine 3500, but models have changed). "Auto Off" does not require anything additional, it can be used as a wholesome night dive lamp as well and, if necessary, it can serve as lamp for the occasional video...

Problem solved: I just saw the "edit" button to the right...😄

I just have put my Sony 90mm macro lens, Focus gear and the nauticam macroport in the marketplace... I listed the individual items and added the entire package (=cheaper) as a separate item. Now the sum shown is the individual items plus the package... => Nobody will have a closer look when seeing this false price... => How can I edit the announce and cancel the package? Thanks, Wolfgang

new price (shipping within EU included; no shipping to USA): Sony 90mm macro lens (new: 799 Euro): asking 400 Euro Focus gear (new: 220 Euro): asking 120 Euro Macroport 105 (new: 440 Euro): asking 260 Euro selling together as set for 740 Euro (preferred).

Item is available again (shipping to US turned out to be extremely difficult): 250 Euro, shipping within EU included (no shipping tp US)

You mean MFO-3 (or did you use MFO-1 with LX10)? I have MFO-3 and this diopter clearly improves IQ by reducing (the rather large) distance to medium size subjects (and decreasing focal length) and hence reducing the detoriating effect of water on IQ (Sony 100mm GM)...

This does not sound good, since distance to subject is greatly reduced by MFO-1 (I do not own MFO-1). Using the 1,4x TC seems to be the much better way to increase magnification to me (at least with Sony 100mm GM; with other lenses TCs might not be possible). Storytelling says that MFO-1 improves IQ (at least in theory), but I did not see a rigorous demonstration yet (e.g. testchards)...

Is it known whether the distance (front element (port or MFO-1, depending on usage) to object at 1.4x (both with and w/o) MFO-1 is the same?

This is an aspect that people who unrestrainedly use and recommend BBF (like myself) overlook: everybodies hands as well as the construction of camera houses are different and do not fit together always... 👍 My personal situation concerned, when I take/took my Nauticam housings (EM5II/EM1II/A7R5) UW into my hands, the dumb is aready sitting rigth an the BBF lever and the index finger touches the shutter. It could not be easier and more relaxed... But what about left handed, different anatomy of hands or different housing manufacturer? Using AF together with shutter release requires a fine sense of touch in the index finger and also some practice: I am sure I would produce an enormous number of failures by pressing incidentially the shutter too soon...

Ah, scientific documentation is a major goal... Then it very well might be that the choice of lenses is further narrowed - e.g. I am not sure that 180° fisheye is the right lens for this purpose. The Subal PPO with an excellent 16-35mm WA lens MAY BE the king here (but I do know nothing about UW archeology and optimum lens types)... => Better ask these UW archeologists which lenses are useful...

Here I have found an article by two very serious UW photographers about this issue (also available as video): Inside ScubaMastering Underwater Autofocus with Alex Mustard and Matt...Expert tips from Alex Mustard and Matthew Sullivan on mastering autofocus for underwater photography. Learn the best settings for macro and wide-angle.It seems even these guys have different preferences regarding this aspect (but I think what they say regards modern, up-to-date cameras)...

I am not sure that I am a "serious" UW photographer, but since I read about dumb focus in Alex Mustards book, years ago, I use it and it helps a lot. I should add that I always had Nauticam housings that have a special lever for it, just placed were the dumb of the right hand is located... Wolfgang

In my view (from someone who was owning Olympus MFT and is now using Sony FF), the difference in size and weight exists, but depends to a great extend on the type of lenses (there are differences between the FF mount systems; I cannot comment on APS-C systems, I never owned one and have zero overview there (also acryl ports or ports from other companies with comparable parameters will work, of course)): #1.: Fisheye w/wo zoom capability: Zen DP100 for MFT vs Nauticam140 (or similar) for FF. => MFT wins (Tokina 10-17mm fisheye with Metabones 0.7x speedbooster and Zen DP100; similar to Zuiko 8mm, that, however, has no zoom out capability)). I, personally was using the, optically superb, Canon 8-15mm with Nauticam 140 - almost no difference in size and weight then. #2.: WA wet lenses: work more or less on both MFT and FF (at present, Sony FF seems to have no WWL-C compatible lens and is the exception (WWL-C was developed for compact cameras; I am not sure about IQ on FF)). => No difference in practice. #3.: rectilinear WA: ZenDP170(or Nauticam180) vs Nauticam230 for FF. there are, however, exceptional lenses like Tamron 17-28mm that work very well behind DP170 (I have one, but almost never use it, since i use adapted canon 8-15mm fisheye with 2x Sony TC). In this case no difference to MFT. I do not know, whether this lens is available in Nikon Z, but Google does. => MFT wins (but not miles ahead); no difference compared with Tamron 17-28mm on FF. #4.: Intermediate focal range for fish portrait (normally seldom used): I am/was using Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 pro for MFT as well as Sony 20-70mm f/4 G behind Zen DP170. Both delivered excellent IQ. Now replaced by MFO-3 that also delivers very good IQ and is not flexible, but portability when travelling is so much better. => No difference #5.: Macro: here comes the really big difference: Macro rig with Zuiko 60mm or Panasonic 45mm extension (one can use the 45mm Nauticam port for both, 60mm needs an additional 20mm extension) is such a tiny and smart rig compared to the Nauticam rigs with Sony 90mm or, now, 100mm GM macrolens. In my MFT days the WA rigs (type #1, #3, #4) used to be the biggest and heaviest, while now the situation is reversed. The macro rig is the biggest and most monstrous rig I assemble with my Sony A7R5 (I use #1, #2 (WACP-C), #3 (I do not own a 230mm dome), #4). => Only type where MFT is a clear winner in my eyes (when focus is totally correct and no motion blurr, one gets excellent IQ in both systems (FF offers more postprocessing power, but this makes little difference in practice).