Architeuthis

Hi Michael, I used Sony 1.4x, 2x, Kenko 1.4x HD Pro and Kenko 2x TCs with the Canon 8-15mm. One can use them all... It is difficult to predict how a WA fisheye lens will perform with a TC, as all TC were not designed for this use... I got best results, regarding IQ, with Sony 2x and Kenko 1.4x HD Pro, the other two TCs performed less good. Surprisingly, Sony 1.4x performed not better (maybe even a bit worse) compared to Sony 2x... With Kenko 1.4x HD Pro the extension is the same as with Sony 2x, so you can use the same zoomgear (at least one can use the same 3D printed extension ring for the "regular" Nauticam zoom gear, that I am using)... Wolfgang P.S.: I have both WACP-C/28-60mm and Canon 8-15mm with and w/o Sony 2xTC. On my last two trips WACP-C was left at home (Subjectively, I find IQ pretty comparable and prefer the 180° diagonal over the 130° of WACP-C (the Canon 8-15mm w/o TC can also be used on some dives and clearly performs optically better than both WACP-C or 8-15mm&2xTC variants (but is, of course, less flexible)))

A sachet of baking soda is easy to include in an emergency kit...

Thank you all again for this great advice...👍 I will take the fiberglass stick plus isopropylalcohol as first treatment and, if this is not enough, antioxidant cleaner and even coca cola... (I should add that Backscatter definitely does not recommend to use contacts cleaner and/ore coke, but what can we do when the milder treatments fail (Sevag from BS service department writes: "...I would strongly advise against using Coca Cola or anything other than either pure fresh water or isopropyl alcohol on any strobe equipment...")?)... The DeOxid Gold, recommended by Dave, is very expensive here in Europe (about 50 Euros), I found a cheaper product (produced in EU), I hope that it will work equally well: https://www.amazon.de/Kontakt-Chemie-KONTAKT-70004-AA-Kontaktreiniger/dp/B004SGL2T0/ref=ast_sto_dp_puis

It seems to be a great lens, but it will remain a "nice" product, useful only for Canon mirrorless users... It is really a pity that it comes in the mirrorless RF mount. The old Canon EF mount was, besides beeing the mount for Canon, some kind of "universal" mount, easily adaptaple to RF, Sony FE, MFT and even to Nikon Z. One could see a lot of EF lenses on camera bodies other than Canon... (beeing a user of Canon 8-15mm f/4 EF on Sony, I have no urge to switch, at present, to another lens with similar properties, even if it would be compatible (RF is certainly not))...

Hi Warmuth, Is this observed decrease in IQ, when you compare the lens behind flatport to the lens in air? Or does IQ decrease when using domeport and compare to IQ with planport? Or is it MFO-1 & planport vs. plain planport? Thanks, Wolfgang

As far as I understand, the MFO-1 lens corrects for the optical aberrations introduced by using macrolenses behind planports and should have similar IQ to a macrolens behind domeport (?). For longer focal length (e.g. 90mm on FF), however, these aberrations are pretty small and neglectible. For shorter focal length (e.g. 50mm or smaller for FF), a domeport may increase IQ noticeably... Anyone can confirm this from real life experience? P.S.: I am using Sony 20-70mm (FF) and was using Zuiko 12-40m (MFT) behind Zen DP170 domeport (not for real macro, but for fishportrait). At the short end IQ is very good and certainly better compared to planport, but I am not shure whether the domeport brings improvement at the long end...

So far I never did experience problems with corrosion of electrodes, but on my recent trip to Mafia Island/Tansania in November, two HF-1 strobes almost simultaneaously let me down for most of the time of the stay (it turned out later the reason was corrosion of the electrodes)... I was using them for approx. 2 years, never flooded them and cannot remember that I ever dropped a single drop of (salt)water into the battery compartment. I fear that this problem will come again and plan to put together some kind of "emergency kit" that I can use when I am abroad. The strobes had the electrodes replaced at Backscatter (kind, quick and labour as a goodwill case), are now on their way back and I asked Sevag (the Service Manager), what components he would suggest for such a kit. I think his suggestion may be of interest also for others here: "...The best tools to have with you are some alcohol wipes, liquid isopropyl alcohol if possible (90-99% is best), a brush to help reach the contacts at the base of the strobe, and a fiberglass cleaning tool like one of these: https://www.backscatter.com/Hama-Contact-Cleaner-CAUTION-Fiberglass ..." What is the opinion of UW- photographers, who have had problems in the past with strobe electrodes, about such a "kit"? How did you deal with corroded electrodes? Any additional suggestions? Thanks for the input, Wolfgang

Hi Dave, I copied now your image with the photograph (hope the inage is unprocessed from raw), reduced the resolution to 120 pixels (long side) and measured now with the eyedropper tool in Pgotoshop the luminance of these big pixels (average from the four pixels, diagonally adjacent to the center, since there seems to be an arrow in the center and above and below the arrow there are some enhanced regions)... Here is the result in numbers (luminance), arranged in the your order: Indeed the luminance values go into some kind of saturation at higher intensities (Retra Maxi above +3/+2.5; Backscatter above Full/0.5) and this completely supports the impression that I get by direct inspection of your photographs... => Since this is not in accordance to my observations that I got from 2 years of using the HF-1 UW (switching the power button from Full to +1 and further to +2 brings substantial improvements in strobe power, not just few percent (almost within experimental variability)), I conclude that the experimental setup used is not suitable for assessing the strobe power at high settings (Retra Maxi above +3/+2.5; Backscatter above Full/0.5) => There may be numerous factors responsible (only you can check and find out). One likely one could be that the pixels on the sensor got oversaturated at these immense light intensities (flash positioned 65cm from the wall)... Wolfgang P.S.: Here the coarsened image of your results, in order to make the eydropper readings more representative: RetraTest.tiff

How are you measuring the brigthness by means of LRc histograms? I know one can measure the brightness in individual, representative, pixels with the cursor after right clicking the histogram and selecting "Show Lab color values" and takijng the "L" value for "Lightness (but there are millions of pixels). This could become more representative by downsampling the image to e.g. 10x10 pixels and measuring brigthness in these big, averaged, ones (maybe you do this aready?)... A big problem may also be that many pixels are oversaturated at the high intensities when photographing a wall flashed at a distance of 65cm, even when ISO50 and f/25 are used. Then the brightness measurements are certainly in error and will not make sense... I am asking, beacuse the measured values for HF-1 (98% vs 96% vs 91% at +2 vs +1 vs Full) do not match the reality. When I use my HF-1s UW, the brigthness differences are much bigger in real life... Sorry that I write this, I really greatly apprechiate your testing, but there is a mistake in your measurement method that needs to be fixed... Wolfgang

There must be a problem with the measurement of brightness at the very high power levels: 99% vs. 98% for the Retra at booster vs. full power, 98% vs 96% vs 91% for HF-1 at +2 vs +1 vs Full. This would mean almost no difference in real world and this is not what my practical experience is with HF-1... With lower intensities the measurements look more reasonable... Could it be that many pixels are already in saturation at these very high intensities? How is the brightness quantitated by means of the histogram in LR?

We need an article that classifies and sorts the different products into categories, with link to serious reviews (In case I would have to acquire a strobe now, I would not even know what, exactly, is at present on the market)...🙂 The adjustable beam diameter of the AOI snoot looks phantastic...

"The fall-off of light is similar across all three strobes at around 1 f-stop 50 degrees from center. The Maxi has the greatest fall off at 1.22 f-stop reduction from center. The HF-1 @ 11 has the least at 0.92 f-stop reduction." #1.: Would this fall-off be similar when the (dome)diffusers are attached, or would it become smaller (towards more even spread of light)? #2.: Is it possible to say how this compares to the very best strobes, with repect to even spread of light?

Thank you very much for this interesting comparison...👍 Concerning the bursts at 3fps, could one say that, at reduced, but comparable output levels, the performance of the three strobes is good and pretty similar? I mean that the Maxi at 1/4 power and both HF-1 and Atom at 1/2 power deliver similar output and provide stable exposure during the 3fps burst for 10 exposures... (when higher output is selected, all three strobes become unreliable (reduced output with Retra, dropouts with Backscatter)

I think the strobe would be the Backscatter HF-1: plenty of power, warm temperature with 4500K diffuser and wide beam (even wider with the dome diffusers (that I never use, even not required, when 180° fisheye)). Also a snoot (Backscatter OS-3) is available... I, personally, use two HF-1s since two years for WA and macro with Sony A7R5 and the peformance is great. Since two HF-1s are pretty big for macro, I have acquired two MF-2s plus OS-1 snoot a year ago. A single MF-2 & OS-1 is great for snooting and easy to use. In my hands, the bare MF-2s (without snoot) work only well for macro (up to the size of an intermediate fishhead, e.g. smaller muraena eel), when I aim the strobes directly at the subject. I find them unusable for other lighting techniques, e.g indirect, because they are too weak. At present I keep one MF-2 & snoot (the other MF-2 is available in classified here), but have ordered a snoot (OS-3) for the HF-1s. In case the snoot works well, I will also sell the second MF-2 and the snoot... A new strobe, the Retra Maxi, came out that sits in the same niche. I do not know the performance of this strobe (evenness of light, temperature, snoot available?), but reviews by others are right on the way... I also must say that I got problems with both HF-1s after two years of use, because in both flashes the contacts corroded (no water inbrake, just moisture). They are right now, out at Backscatter for repair. It may have been an individul case, however (N=2)... Wolfgang

I do not have experinece with the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, but with different similar lenses, both on MFT and FF. I can compare to WACP-C and/or fisheye behind small, hemispherical domeport (I think the essence is similar): The corners are better with wetoptics or fisheye. In addition, rectilinear lenses, espcially at very wide angles of view, produce an unnatural stretching in the periphery (I find this a more serious problem than the corner sharpness; it seems I am not the only one here)... Here a link to the comparison of WWL-1/WACP-C with rectilinear optics in the old forum: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port/P2 Wolfgang

First, let me thank heartfelt all the testers, who do this thankless task of thoroughly testing and comparing strobes - so that we consumers have a clearer picture before acquiring the expensive equipment... Just my uninvolved remarks on strobe comparison: I fully agree that in any comparison with the new Retra Maxi, the HF-1 is very important to include. This is the reference strobe that Maxi was made to compete with... Another important strobe to compare with is the recent Retra top strobe (I think it is called the MaxII), since this is the strobe that top UW-photographers rate as the very best ones with respect to quality of the light (even distribution and color temperature). Not a direct competitor of Maxi or HF-1, but one would like to know what one is giving up, when acquiring the power models... Maybe also the new AOI P1 strobes is a strong competitor, it seems to be something in the middle between HF-1 and Retra Maxi (some people here wrote that the backscatter strobes are made by AOI; indeed the chassis looks very similar, but it has a circular tube like the maxi)... (I think that comparison of the Maxi with e.g. Z330 or even MF-3 does not make much sense - these strobes are in different niches)

As far as I have understood the "shaving" issue, this was for photographers who (mis?)used the Tokina on FF cameras. The image circle of this lens seems to be bigger as required for APS-C and the shades came into the image and had to be removed when the lens was used on larger sensors... Yes, both Tokina 10-17mm and Canon 8-15mm fisheye lenses have been discontinued and must now be regarded as vintage lenses (RIP, two great UW lenses)...😐 As an incorrigible optimist I hope that proper substitutes (and a 15-35mm FF fisheye) are on the way ...

I'm currently thinking of buying a Tokina 10-17mm lens, only thing I'm not sure yet is about the fixed petal hood, which could pose a problem inside the dome port. Hi tailwind, I use the Tokina 10-17mm, both in 140mm Nauticam and in 100mm Zen hemispherical glass domeports. The petal hood is small and does not make problems... For comparison: with the Canon 8-15mm fisheye one can leave the detachable hood on the lens when using the 140mm domeport, but has to detach it when putting the lens into the 100mm domeport...

As the others say - it may be condensation, especially the last two photos... I am not sure that the black shadows is condensation as well, maybe it is condensation at the end of the lens or on one or both ends of the TC. Hopefully it is not the sensor (it may be a sensor on the way to die (e.g. moisture inside the layers). One should have a close look at all the components with a loupe (especially at the sensor with a special "sensor loupe" with LED lights, if you have one)... You could also make a test, in order to se whether there are any remains still there (but too faint to be detectable in regular photos) and to locate the source: first entire configuration (camera/TC/Canon8-15mm). Make focused (also defocused) photos of a homogeneous white wall. Then overprocess in LR (unnaturally high contrast/clarity/defogging) to see whether there are any remains of the shadows visible (similar to testing the sensor for dust speckles). In case you see some remains, first remove TC and repeat. When still there try another lens. When it shows up also with another lens, it is, unfortunately the sensor...

I fully agree - "fisheye look" is something that one loves or hates. Some UW-photographers hate it, but many like it (includig the ones that have wetoptics e.g. WACP/WWL from Nauticam (that also creates fisheye optics, but not as radical as circular or 180° diagonal as the diagonal angle of view is smaller (< 130°)))... I don't think that one should use the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye with TCs. This lens is developed for APS-C(DX) and at 10mm, starts more or less, with 180° diagonal (addition of a TC would, to my personal opinion, rather decrease versatility). In addition the optics of this lens is below average (on the surface) and it is o.k. for UW, but there are no reserves for "blowing up" the image with TCs. When using this lens on MFT sensor, the sharpness is better when the lens is adapted via the 0.71x speedbooster (that compresses the image circle and so increases sharpness on the sensor), compared to using the glassless 1x adapter (when using this lens with the glasless 1x adapter, the zoom range is pretty comparable to the WWL/WACP configurations BTW)...

What species of shark is this one, by the way?

Interesting - I did not know that the noise made with plastic bottle attracts sharks because they think there is a shark somewhere eating fish... I have seen myself that "plastic bottle noise" attracts sharks: years ago a guide practiced it sucessfully at Daedalus Reef/Egypt to attract hammerhead sharks at a depth of approx. 30m. It was very impressive, but I did not feel that it was dangerous (the hammerhead sharks there are shy and, unfortunately, other divers quickly approaching the few "scouts" chased them away, before the entire school showed up ☹️) I think there must be other, additional, factors, e.g. baiting/feeding that makes sharks agressive and dangerous...

The Atom flash with the snoot looks very good ... I have good experience with using MF-2 with OS-1. In the "snoot mode" the MF-2 has enough power for the way I make macro photos (not enough power, however, for my taste, when I use MF-2 without snoot). The only drawback of the MF-2/OS-1 combo I see is the lack of a red aiming light (maybe the new MF-3 has red light?), since some critters get scared by the white illumination when adjusting the frame... I am now thinking to acquire a snoot for my HF-1s ("Bazooka" as Adventurer calls it 😄). Alternatively an additional Atom flash with snoot, both for snooting and as a spare flash...

I had a look at the video, linked above by Tino. In the video Alex states that FCP/28-60mm(?) has lower IQ compared to the WACP;WWL/28-60mm combinations. This makes me doubt that FCP/28-60mm provides superior IQ compared to the Canon 8-15mm/2x Sony TC combination. It seems to me that FCP cannot justify the high cost, size and weigth ... I fully agree on EMWL, but low tide in my burse at the moment (the new Sony 100mm macro arrived just few minutes ago at my entrance door...🤗)

Selling Sony 90mm f/2.8 macro lens (SEL90M28G), Nauticam focus gear (SKU#36175) and N100 macroport 105 for 90mm lens (SKU#37126). Signs of using, but in perfect condition... Sony 90mm macro lens (new: 799 Euro): asking 470 Euro Focus gear (new: 220 Euro): asking 160 Euro Macroport 105 (new: 440 Euro): asking 300 Euro selling together as set for 880 Euro (preferred). prices include shipping within EU. Payment via PayPal or bank transfer.