Architeuthis

It would be very helpful if Nauticam can provide sample images like e.g. with and w/o MFO-1 that clearly show the benefit of using MFO-1. And does it improve IQ also when a macro lens through domeport is compared to macrolens&MFO-1 through flatport (especially interesting for shorter focal lenses, where the flatport makes most detoriation of IQ)? It seems to me that the MFO-1 is better mounted permanently to the flatport when making macro. But then, what when another diopter will be used that increases the magnification substantially above 1x (like SMC-1 that is essential for macro on FF)? Is SMC-1 used in addition to MFO-1 via e.g. a flip holder (as many use the SMC-1 now)? Or is MFO-1 removed and SMC-1 mounted instead (either via (unhandy) double flip holder or by dismantling MFO-1 and storing in a pocket)?

I still do not really understand the advantage of using this new diopter (when looking at the Nauticam portchard for the Sony 90mm macro, I see that max. magnification and working distance are pretty similar with or without MFO-1)... You say that sharpness of the image and other qualities are improved. Can you please explain this in more detail (As far as my understanding is, any additional glass added to a lens (e.g. TC or diopter) leave IQ, at the best, untouched. How is it possible that sharpness improves?)... Thanks, Wolfgang

Wow, Retra reacted really fast to the Backscatter HF-1. If I would not have bought recently two HF-1s (at present, I like them a lot, since they do a great job) and serious reviews would show that the Retra Maxi performed as good as the specs suggests, I might have considered them instead... Anyhow it is good that affordable and powerful strobes become now available, after Inon stopped production of the Z330... I fear Retra may come out with a smart model with circular tubes and integrated Li+ batteries (instead of 8 NiMh batteries, 4 being in the supercharger extension) - this may be the point where I cannot hold myself back and will order some... Wolfgang

This is indeed a stone-coral, one of the few ones in the Mediterranean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladocora_caespitosa With "corals" I mean the class of Anthozoa ("Blumentiere" in German). These animals are really beautiful in the Adria. Also Gorgonia belong to this group. This September we were able to see/photograp even a precious coral (Corallium rubrum) in the Kornati national park at quite shallow depth of approx. 33m (they are almost extinct at recreational divers depths)... Is the new owner the son of Jani (his name was Tommi)? Jani was the previous operator, he also made the guide aboard the old Vranjak. Or is it the son of the previous captain (I cannot remember his name just now)?

Thank you for this interesting report, Klaus...👍 In the old days (before 2000) I have been twice for a week on the old Vranjak and it was fantastic and outstanding. Later there appeared a new boat, the Vranjak II (maybe this is th erecent Vranjak) and now it seems even the operator has changed. We certainly will book a trip in the near future (as far as I know one should reserve a place optimally 2 years in advance, I guess the scedule for 2025 is pretty full 😊). We go to the Adriatic at least twice a year (for us it is aprox. 4h driving by car). Especially the corals (e.g. in Vis and Kornati islands) easily compete with any other destination. The Anthias colonies at red Gorgonia fields (alomost) beat the Red Sea, but one must go at least 30m, better pretty deeper, to see the beauty. Macro motifs, like nudies, are beautiful and abundand. As Klaus writes, it may not be a favorite destination for people coming from far away, but for people living close... => Also complete charter is available, if made well in advance, maybe one of us should organize a special UW-photographer safari (best time is second week in September - first week in October, then 7mm semidry is sufficient)? Wolfgang

The heavier weight, or better the negative buoyancy, was only a problem on the first dive: I had the floats mounted the same way as I had for the relatively neutral Z330, i.e. most floats on the inner arm, to have buoyancy close to the center of gravity. The result was a rig with strong torque, because of the backwards positioned HF-1s that pulled the rig down. Now I put the floats more on the outer arm and I do not recognize any more that they are heavier than the Z330s... Regarding the Li+ batteries, It is much better to travel with 8 batteries, sufficient for two HF-1 and one MF-2, compared to the 16 NiMh batteries plus two 21700, previously for two Z330s plus HF-2. Li+ is certainly the future. I find the negative and anxious feelings of some people too innovation skeptical and also a little bit ambiguous. There are so many Li+ batteries on board of aeroplanes (and also diving vessels) already now, because of handys and computers. The minority of Li+ batteries is from divers, is it video lights or diving torches, where Li+ batteries are already the standard. Now come some additional Li+ batteries from UW flashes - so what? Regarding airline restrictions, the 21700 need to be carried as carry-on luggage, not as check-in luggage, up to 20 are allowed. The restrictions start at 100 Wh capacity (2 allowed) and at > 160 Wh the real problems start, see e.g. here: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/6fea26dd84d24b26a7a1fd5788561d6e/passenger-lithium-battery.pdf => In summary, no regrets so far (Tomorrow, November 13rd, I will take off for the next dive trip 😋(Tansania, Mafia island))... The HF-1s are a substantial upgrade compared to the Z330s, regarding color temperature and power. Light distribution is very good according to my experiences, but see Alex Mustards review on HF-1 (He writes the HF-1 belongs to the best UW flashes available and he likes them a lot, but the Retras provide more even and softer light distribution and hence, are even better)... Wolfgang

I have Macbook M1 Pro, approx. four years old. Still very good for photo (LRc & Photoshop) and video editing (DaVinci freeware version). When the notebook was new, all LRc editing was fast as a flash, but in the meantime the AI based filters came out. These consume much more processor time. As I use the computer, the AI filters are the most demanding tasks. Processing a single photo (e.g. NR via AI) lasts up to a minute (estimated, A7R5). I guess with the new M4 Pro this may be half or even less of the time (I did not see benchmarks for these AI applications for comparison, but maybe someone has already tested.)... New applications demand more power. 32 MB RAM are still sufficient and 2TB SSD is o.k. (I have programs and not yet finished projects on the SSD and this is approx. 1TB (only 1TB would be limiting for me). I have the 14" version, as I find this much more convenient for traveling. At home, I connect the notebook to a calibrated 27" monitor... Wolfgang

I cannot tell about the Retras, but I can compare Z330 against HF-1... Already after one two week diving holiday, I can say that with HF-1 (with 4500K flat diffusers) the color of the sea needs little correction in most cases (WA with 180° fisheye and WACP-C with 130° and less; combination of both flash and natural light). With Z330, I had to adjust this color much more, not seldom using masks in LR. Also the susceptibility to backscatter seems to be less with HF-1 (I guess the flat diffusers have a narrower beam angle compared to the Z330 with the built in dome diffusers, but cannot say exactly, it is just a subjective impression)... I did not recognize a difference in evenness or softness of the light distribution. Not seldom I get a darker area in the middle (no matter wich flashes), but the reason is that I did not position the strobes correctly (usually I use "9-3", "10-2" up to "semi-rabbit ear (also something like 3-9, but on elongated arms", depending on motif (depending on how far I want to reach the flashlight and also how reflective the bottom is)) - in my case it happens when the strobes are too far out for the distance of the subject... Wolfgang

I am not in the Nikon system, so others have a better overview - but I just see that Nikon came out with a new APS-C model (unfortunately not with a smaller stacked sensor, similar to Z8 and still with 20 Mpixel): https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z50ii-initial-review#II Depending on how good the AF works UW, it may be a good camera for UW. I am not sure, but I believe that the old Nikon 8-15mm fisheye and the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye (Nikon version) are not usable on the Z mount, but as far as I know, one can use the Canon EF version of Tokina and the Canon 8-15mm via adapters on Z-mount (plus all Z mount lenses and also the old Nikon lenses that work via adapter)... Maybe worth a consideration? Wolfgang

Good to hear from Brandon and you that the WACP-C offers a real advantage over WWL-1...😊 About the Laowa 10mm one must add that this lens offers a very special perspective and this is certainly not for everybodies taste. It distorts heavily at the corners, the opposite way as fisheye lenses do (fisheye and WWL/WACP compress the borders). The Laowa 10mm stretches the borders out extensively - much too much for my taste. I used it together with the 140mm dome on 2 dives, but I think I will not use this lens again UW, unless (maybe) for a very special occasion...

At the same (wide) aperture, the WWL has better corners. One must add, however, that corners are not really important for most of the photos under these circumstances (big fish/whale in open water)... It is, of course, a matter of personal preference, but I prefer the fisheye-like character of WWL/WACP in most cases: the object in the center gets emphasized and more hefty, while the periphery gets compressed... I will go to Mafia Island/Tansania in two weeks and hopefully we will encounter whale sharks and whales there. Similar situation, but (hopefully) more light. I am sure I will use my WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm for most of the time... I plan to use 1/320s, f/5.6 - f/8 and variable ISO as startup settings (A7R5). Not sure about AF yet, AF of A7R5 is very good, but too many options. I have the camera&housing set so that I can set "AF-Subject Detection" ON/OFF with the record button, C2 to set the "Focus Area" and C3 to toggle "Recognition Target"... Wolfgang

Just an update to the viewfinder issue: I have sent the viewfinder to PanOcean, who forwarded the viewfinder to Nauticam. Information from Nauticam: It is a water inbreak into the nitrogen selaed part of the viewfinder (as Alex presumed) and some parts are corroded. They will exchange the corroded parts under warranty (they say it is labourious, will take approx. 4 hours under Nitrogen atmosphere)...😊 There is also a water stain on the main prisma that is visible when looking through and replacement of the prisma will cost approx. 400 Euros (surprisingly this consequence of the water inbreak is not covered by warranty)...😐 Wolfgang P.S.: it seems that on my next trip that starts on November 13rd, I will still be without the viewfinder...😟

Hi Justin, My approach is not to squeeze out the maximum colors of an existing monitor, but that the colors I see on the monitor during processing in LR and PS should (ideally) be reproduced the same way when the photos are viewed/printed at the end... I view the photos at home on a BenQ 2k beamer and most printing is done for an annual calender that I give to family/friends for Christmas. Seldom some magazine or a big print for the wall. All these end users are able for just for sRGB (as is the internet) and in order to avoid unpleasant surprise, it is better to supply them with calibrated sRGB images... I have a monitor here (BenQ SW270c) that I calibrate from time to time, both in sRGB and aRGB, and I can toggle between sRGB and aRGB (maybe some (remote) day I may be invited to upload an image to a high quality aRGB print medium and then the aRGB option will come into the play...)... Since I switched to edit everything in calibrated sRGB, the final output on the beamer and also on the prints look much more like I see them on my screen... Wolfgang

I think since you already have Nikon Z, it is better to stay with the system you have unless you intend to switch to Sony anyhow... In case you choose Sony and do not want the many Megapixels (I find them very useful), you could wait for A75 that probably will come out soon and certainly will have the latest technology. WA fisheye is a real problem with FF (all brands), there is nothing like Tokina 10-17mm for APS-C. Only FCP-1 or 8-15mm fisheye with TC (1.4x, maybe even 2x (=> see tread on 8-15 fisheye with TC about this issue) cover the entire range, starting from 180°. WWL/WACP options start at 130° and this is not enough (at least for me, personally)... I think that Canon 8-15mm & 2x Sony TC on Sony is o.k., but there may be a difference in IQ between the Nikon and Canon 8-15mm fisheyes, especially when used with TCs (maybe the performance of the Nikon 8-15mm fisheye with TCs is much worse) - this has never been studied in detail... Wolfgang

I recently upgraded the firmware of my Loupedeck CT to 6.0.1.20874. The results is that the LRc icons look terrible: just white on black background, no colors (in the perevious upgrade, where these problems started they looked even worse: white on turquoise). They are very difficult to differentiate during the workflow, what greatly decreases the usability of this hardware extension. Even in the "Color Mixer" submenue of the "Develop" module, all icons are white on black and one has to have close look, which color range is active, before adjustments are done... Did anyone experience a similar problem? Did you downgrade to the last usable version? I have Macbook Pro M1 and Sequoia 15.0.1 (is it the same with windows?) Wolfgang

Regarding the series of sample images that I posted recently, I have opened a poll in DPReview: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4781390 => I greatly appreciate participation of people who take their time (the invitation for a beer is, of course, also valid in the waterpixel forum... 😋). Wolfgang

It may change a little the way how to use and store diopters. Often, a single flip diopter with SMC and the bare lens in macroport is used... With MFO-1 on the macroport (mounting MFO-1 on the flip diopter would not make too much sense, except to be able to photograph subjects >1m away, what is not the usual application of a macrolens), one could have a SMC on the flip holder, for coming closer for small subjects, but needs to remove the MFO-1 before using the SMC. So either one uses a double flip holder with both SMC and MFO on it (not really handsome), or one waives the flip diopter, screws the MFO or SMC on and mounts a receipe on an arm to store the diopter not in use...

20mm - 1000mm focus distance sounds indeed fantastic, but it is hard to believe: according to port charts, focus distance of Sony 90mm with SMC-1 is 45mm - 93mm (at 2.2x maximum magnification) and with SMC-2 is 22mm - 36mm (at 3.4x)...

The first serious reviews of this lens look good, e.g. here: https://dustinabbott.net/2024/10/tamron-90mm-f2-8-di-iii-macro-vxd-review/ => AF seems to be faster and IQ a tad sharper compared to the Sony 90mm macro... Less of interest for Sony photographers who already have the native 90mm macro and the latest camera models (e.g. me with A7R5), but possibly of interest for people who have older camera models, where AF is not working well with the native macro lens... Possibly of interest for Nikon Z (but as far as I know the native 105mm is very good and the focal length comes close). A pity that Tamron did not come out with a macro lens with complementary to the existing ones (I personally would have liked 120 or even 150mm; also magnification bigger than 1:1)... Wolfgang

Hi Michi, I used YS-D2 and Z330, exclusively in manual mode, on EM1II and EM5II and never had a problem with flash power (Triggered via Oly miniflash or Nauticam flash trigger using multifibre optical cables)... Now I use Z330 and HF-1, manually, with A7R5 with optical cables (Nauticam or Turtle-manual flash triggers) and it works without problems. There may be differences in menue between A7R5 and A1, but here are the flash settings that I use in the "Exposure Color" Menue Tab. Maybe it helps: Wolfgang

Finally I managed to put the full resolution photos to DPReview. I had to split into three treads...😋 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779356 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779452 https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4779455

Here another series of photos with Lisi. Canon 8-15mm/2xTC, Canon 8-15mm w/o TC and Sony 26-60mm/WACP-C are compared: #1.: Canon8-15/2xTC @15.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #1a.: 1:1 crop: #2.: Canon8-15(no TC) @15mm, f/13, ISO400, 1/100s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #2a.: 1:1 crop: #3.: Sony 28-60mm @28mm, WACP-C with N100 30mm extension, f/11, ISO400, 1/100s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): 3a.: same photo, 1:1 crop: I would say that the differences between Canon 8-15mm, Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C are, at the best, subtile. For me subjectively, with regard to resolution and sharpness, the Canon 8-15 wins and Canon 8-15mm/2xTC and WACP-C are second place (pretty on par, WACP-C may be slightly better @28mm, while slightly worse @60mm, when compared to Canon 8-15mm/2xTC (Canon 8-15mm/2xTC seems to me more constant in IQ over the entire zoom range))... => For me, the Canon 8-15mm/2xTC is certainly an option for UW... => I am interested to hear how you judge the performance of the Sony 2xTC Wolfgang

I was able to use the Canon 8-15mm/Sony 2xTC on our last diving holidays in Murter/Croatia for 6 dives and can show some photos, for comparison (photos processed, slightly cropped and hughly reduced in size to allow posting here - I will put the full resolution, unprocessed photos in DPReview/UW Forum). The aim of the series is to compare the resolution/sharpness in the middle of the frame, because the fear is that this is greatly detoriated by the 2xTC.. Visibility was intermediate (I estimate approx. 15m-20m) with plenty of particles providing backscatter. I had Sony A7R5 in Nauticam housing, Nauticam domeport 140mm. Extension used was N120/35&25mm in addition to the N100/N120 35.5mm adapter: #1.: A photo of a scorpionfish (Scorpaena scrofa). Canon8-15/2xTC @29.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #1a.: same photo, but 1:1 crop from the 61 Mpixel sensor and from the in focus region, to judge for details (possibly "swallowed" by the 2xTC): #2.: Same fish was so kind to remain in position (😋), so I could zoom out and make another photo. Canon8-15/2xTC @15.9mm, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #2a.: same photo, 1:1 crop: I also had the Sony 28-60mm/WACP-C combination with me, that I used more often on this trip. For comparison, I show here a photo from the same species, similar framing, taken on another day: #3.: Sony 28-60mm @60mm, WACP-C with N100 30mm extension, f/16, ISO400, 1/125s, 2*HF-1 (4500K flat diffusers): #3a.: same photo, 1:1 crop: I will post another series of photos in a subsequent post to this tread... Wolfgang

This graph is interesting, albeit I must admit that I do not really understand what, exactly, it means... Maybe one can say that the parameter quantified for shadow improvement, is the same for all cameras at base ISO, for "conventional" cameras it makes a jump when the second gain kicks in, and then, for the GH-7 this parameter rises continously with ISO instead of making a jump? I am in occasional contact with Massimo by EMail and he writes that he can raise "Exposure" in LR by +3 EV without noise problems (I find it a pity that he does not participate here any more). This sounds to me more like raw files from a FF camera (e.g. the Sony A7R5 that I have at present) - but better this new technology, that blews up the raw files to 16 bit, brings a substantial benefit... I am eager to see the final results of serious reviews and the comparison to other cameras, e.g. the exposure series in DPReview, that will come out, hopefully, soon... Wolfgang

Hi Hedonist, The loss of resolution, due to diffraction, is pretty similar between these two lenses (stopped down the resolution of different sensors is by far not limiting): https://www.lenstip.com/214.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_100_mm_f_2.8_L_Macro_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html https://www.lenstip.com/561.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_90_mm_f_2.8_Macro_G_OSS_Image_resolution.html The smallest aperture possible with Sony 90mm is f/22 (probably because of the problem of loss in resolution). It is, of course, a matter of personal taste, and much more of the required DOF, how much one stops down such a lens, but (theoretically) best results are obtained at f/4... Wolfgang