DecidedlyOdd

Do they not make the thicker window for that housing? If so, that's too bad. I love it on my EM-1 housing.

The housing has now been sold. All the other items, including ports and lenses are still available. Make me an offer! Unfortunately, I can no longer offer free 2-day shipping due to a recent job change (had access to great Fedex rates as a benefit), but I'll still only charge actual shipping costs.

I'm open to offers for collections of the above gear. Sorry, I don't know what the shutter count of the camera is. I've taken thousands of photos with it though.

I'm having trouble adding all the other photos of the housing, so I've put them up here on OneDrive: http://1drv.ms/1ClWK78

Some photos of the camera

Just wanted to bump this again. Feel free to make an offer on any of the above!

I've used it with the 4.33" dome and no extension, so similar setup but not the same. My general experience was that the image quality was fairly good, but that the minimum focusing distance restricted how close you could get. Also 12mm is not really all that wide underwater. On the plus side, it is a very compact wide angle setup. In this album, the photos of the wooden boat were taken with the Olympus12/f2 behind the 4.33" dome while the airplanes were all done with the Panasonic 7-14/f4 behind the Zen 170mm with 20mm extension. https://flic.kr/s/aHsjYDqxsW Visibility was low and it was very dark in the lake, but I still feel like the Panasonic performs better, although the dome is much larger.

I've been very happy with my mirrorless set up (Olympus EM-1 in Nauticam housing), but have you considered getting a magnifying viewfinder for your DSLR? I've used mine both with my old Canon DSLR and the EM-1 (electronic viewfinder) and it makes a huge difference. In fact, even with the mirrorless EM-1 I prefer to use the magnified viewfinder over the rear LCD mostly because of in water characteristics (easier to hold steady, better diver trim).

It's theoretically easier to do over/under shots with a glass dome than acrylic because water tends to run off the glass more readily. But you can still do them with either material. The larger issue in my mind is that small domes just aren't very good for over/under shots regardless of their material. The meniscus appears thicker in images taken behind smaller domes and it's just harder to get the water/air boundary exactly where you want it unless the surface of the water is extremely calm. This isn't to say you should pick a larger dome and abandon the smaller dome! Small domes have a lot of advantages (bulk, weight, ability to get in tight areas) that tend to outweigh the disadvantages in most common underwater photographic scenarios. The size usually refers to the distance across the dome at its widest part, which I guess is the diameter (not to be confused with the diameter of the larger sphere a dome is actually likely to be a portion of).

I can't speak to the MacBook Pro, but I have a Surface Pro 3 that's more comparable to a MacBook Air (mobile 1.9GHz i5 with 8GB of RAM). Obviously, a more powerful desktop runs faster, but I find it works fine for processing photos in Lightroom on a trip or at home. The beefier MacBook Pro should perform even better. You may be able to find a demo computer in an Apple store running Aperture to get a sense of performance too.

It looks like this lens has the same minimum focusing distance as the 16-35/f2.8 ii and the 17-40/f4, so I'd expect the performance related to the dome to be similar. Image quality of the lens overall does sound better though. Also, for underwater behind a dome f/4 vs f/2.8 doesn't matter much since you're stopped down so much.

I've found the iDAS arms to be fine and comparable to the ULCS ones, but the iDAS clamps have definitely not held up as well as the ULCS ones. I've used both for a few years now. They're both still perfectly functional, but the iDAS squeak and look worn whereas the ULCS ones practically still look new.

There are two versions of this port for Nauticam mirrorless with different built-in extensions. The part number is DP170 N85 either i or ii. http://zenunderwater.com/products.php?prodID=13

Just a reminder that I'm willing to entertain offers and break any of these items out into separate sales.

I'm selling most of my Canon 550D/T2i Nauticam setup. Everything has been used but is fully functional and in good condition unless otherwise described. Most of this gear was purchased in 2011 except for the port for the 100mm macro which I think I bought in 2013. I'm happy to bundle together as much as possible, so I'm open to offers if you're combining items together. I will give free 2-day shipping (FedEx or Priority Mail if you're just buying a focus ring) within the continental United States. Outside of that, actual shipping charges can be figured out. Equipment is located in Seattle, Washington, USA. All prices in USD. Canon 550D/T2i camera with extra battery, $300 Nauticam NA-550D housing with dual optical bulkheads, $1250 Canon 60mm/2.8 macro lens, $350 Nauticam Port 41 for Canon 60mm, $350 Nauticam C60-F focus gear for Canon 60mm, $150 Nauticam Port 94 for Canon 100mm macro, $400 Tokina 10-17mm/3.5-4.5 fisheye lens $425 Nauticam TC1017-Z focus gear for Tokina 10-17, $150 Zen 100mm glass dome for Nauticam with built in extension for Tokina 10-17, has some small scratches but I haven't noticed them showing up in photos, $350

Selling this Olympus XZ-1 complete setup. This is a high quality point-n-shoot that works very well underwater (see this review from Underwater Photography Guide). The Nauticam housing is ergonomic and made out of powder coated aluminum, so it's much more durable than your average plastic housing. It's also rated to 100m/330ft of depth. I'd prefer to sell it as a package, but am willing to part it out too after waiting a couple days. If somebody takes everything below together, I'll throw in strobe cables, arms and clamps for free. Everything was purchased new about 3 years ago from Optical Ocean Sales. Olympus XZ-1 camera with Nauticam NA-XZ1 housing (includes spare battery and charger): $700 ($800 with tray). Two Sea & Sea YS-02 strobes. The battery compartment of one flooded 2 years ago and there is some tarnish on the cap, but it still works perfectly. $200 for the one that never flooded, $150 for the one that flooded. iTorch Pro3 video/focus light: $175 The equipment is located in Seattle, Washington, USA. If somebody buys the entire set of equipment, I can ship within the USA for free. If it gets parted out or sold internationally, the buyer will just need to pay actual shipping charges. Please PM if you or somebody you know is interested!

Even $5K is on the low end for housing a DSLR system. Besides the camera and housing, you need lenses (for best results, not the same ones being used above water) and ports for them. Plus, there's at least one strobe (two is better if you can swing it), possibly a focus light and all the hardware (arms, clamps) to mount them. It adds up really quickly. One option you may want to consider is finding a used setup that's a generation or two behind the latest and greatest. People often sell them in the classifieds around here at substantial discount. Under $1K is going to pretty difficult though for anything with interchangeable lenses unless it's very out of date. It's hard to beat a GoPro in bang-for-the-buck, although they're really best at video as opposed to stills. A nice point and shoot (RX100, S120, etc.) with a basic strobe (including cords, arms and clamps) in an Ikelite housing can be had for a bit less than $1K without the camera. These kinds of setups can work pretty well for macro, although for wide angle they don't shine quite as well in my opinion.

Note that there are two lenses with a 45mm focal length in the micro 4/3s line up. There's the Panasonic/Leica f/2.8 one which is a true macro lens that focuses down to a 1:1 representation. There's also the Olympus f/1.8 one. It's a great lens but does not focus close enough to be useful underwater (only down to 50cm for a 0.1x magnification). I've had good luck with the 60mm in the temperate waters of Puget Sound, although I prefer the photos I get from a 100mm lens over a 60mm lens on my Canon crop sensor DSLR too. 60mm on a 2x crop factor of m43 gives an angle of view somewhere between a 60mm and 100mm on 1.6x crop, but the minimum focusing distance of the 60mm lenses on both cameras is the same. So you can get just as close with the 60mm on m43 as a 60mm on a Nikon or Canon crop sensor DSLR. The tradeoff is that whatever you're shooting will fill the frame more, which can work for or against you depending on what you're trying to compose. I haven't used the 45mm Panasonic macro to comment on its use in temperate waters. I ended up going with the 60mm Olympus because of price ($900 vs $450 or even less with the deals Olympus often runs) and focusing speed. If you decide to go wide angle, something like the 8mm Panasonic fisheye with a small dome should work well for CFWA type shots. For a first lens, I would definitely vote for macro. Locally, I can get good macro shots on pretty much any dive no matter how poor the visibility is. For good wide angle, there are just fewer subjects and getting an interesting background usually requires better visibility. I also wouldn't consider the kit lens to be a no brainer. I actually owned the 12-50 lens before I bought my E-M1 for a new underwater setup (got it with the E-M5 kit I was using above water), but bypassed the port and gear for it. Instead I just went straight to separate macro and wide angle lenses and ports. The 12-50 will actually fit in the Nauticam port for the 60mm, although you need an aftermarket gear if you want to zoom. I've taken it underwater a couple times set a fixed focal length just to mess around and wasn't very impressed with the photos. Its value is really in the ability to shoot ok macro and okish wide angle on a single dive. At least in the Nauticam system, the port and gear for the 12-50 is fairly expensive. You might be able to spend the same and get both dedicated macro and wide angle by skipping the kit lens or using the 12-50 in the 60mm macro port with the aftermarket focus gear and a wet diopter for macro.

I believe the n120 is for Nauticam DSLR housings. When I ordered my n85 (version 1, no extension built in) the n120 came instead at first. The glass looked the same but the port connection diameter was wider. The box said "mirrorless" as well but as far as I know it's for the larger DSLR port system.

You probably wouldn't for CFWA, but I suppose it depends on the specifics of the shot. It might also make sense for other types of shots. Either way, both of the domes have been successfully used to produce excellent shots. My opinion is that it's easy to overoptimize here.

The photos in that thread I think speak for themselves. The 3.5 will get you closer but the 4.33 probably gets you better image quality in the form of better corners/ability to open the aperture more. I have not used both but the consensus seems to be that they perform equally since they're both just flat ports of almost the same length.

I recently was deciding between the Nauticam 4.33 and 3.5 domes for my EM-1 setup too. I ended up going for the 4.33 since the dealer had it in stock and the 3.5 was going to take a while to back order. Seeing the 4.33 in person, it's still quite small. You can get closer with the 3.5 but the 4.33 is no slouch in this department either. As for the 12-50 and 60 port situation, they both work in the other's port with the some limitations. The 12-50 in the 60 port requires a third party zoom gear (search for 'Austrian' gear or 3D printing files) which does not support the macro mode (using a wet diopter helps out here). The 60 works fine in the 12-50 port, but the port is fairly expensive and it doesn't take a wet diopter as easily due to not having the standard 67mm filter size.

If you're doing macro, two YS-01s should be plenty powerful. That should be a better value than adding a D1 then selling the YS-01 to buy another D1 down the road.

Both strobes have the same color temperature according to the Sea&Sea website. Having different values there can lead to uneven lighting that's difficult to correct after the fact. The D1 will be more powerful and have a different beam angle, which means the power levels and aiming won't be quite the same. But you'd have to be mindful of those factors anyways.

You can think of a strobe operating in manual mode as just a slave flash. That is to say, when the onboard strobe triggers, the light travels down the optical cord to the external strobe, which then triggers as soon as it "sees" the light. In manual mode, the communication is one way and just a simple "flash now" message. With an optical connection and TTL, the onboard strobe sends out pre-flashes. The light from these pre-flashes travels down the optical cord to the external strobe. If the strobe is TTL aware and in the proper mode, it will mimic the pre-flash instead of triggering as a slave strobe (as it would in manual mode). The mimicked pre-flash illuminates your subject, which the camera then picks up in order to estimate the actual needed flash power. Now that the camera has calculated that estimate, it triggers the onboard strobe again for the real flash. When the light reaches the external strobe this time, it is able to mimic the length of the flash to set the appropriate power as well (more flash power just means it emits light for longer, not necessary more intensely). This all happens in such a very short interval that the human eye can't even really distinguish all the steps. This complexity leads to more circuitry in the strobe which leads to a higher price for a strobe that supports TTL. So if your camera does not fire pre-flashes in manual mode, you're not going to get TTL over optical cables. In that case, you might as well save yourself some money to get the YS-02 instead of the YS-01. They're the same strobe except the YS-01 does TTL and costs more. I pretty much always shoot manual personally even though my camera and strobes support TTL. It's not as difficult as it sounds. In cases where I'm shooting macro and really need a correct exposure (i.e., I won't get a second chance at the shot), I'll do TTL. But generally I find the lighting start to feel monotonous and flat when using TTL in macro and often completely over or underexposed when using TTL in wide angle.