ComeFromAway

Update: I fixed it! Seems I hadn't trimmed off enough and that there was a partial break about 1/4 the distance up the cable. Used a box cutter to cut the cable and voila. We're good to go. (My cat chewed the cable a while ago and I missed one of the tooth marks the other day while I was examining the cable... lol)

Hi everyone, Thanks a bunch for your responses, including the links to DIY cables (which I'm seriously considering as a solution). Here's a link to the cable I'm using: https://www.backscatter.com/Nauticam-Dual-Optical-Fiber-Cable-Nauticam-to-Inon I've already tried trimming the end of the cable off, but that didn't help (although I simply used a pair of scissors, but after reading the DIY threads posted above I'm considering going back and using a razor blade). I'll examine the flash trigger itself a little more carefully and then see about disassembling the strobe to cable connector to trim that end portion of the cable off.

Hi all, Has anyone experienced one side of their Nauticam dual fiber optic cable not transmitting enough light to fire a strobe? Right now my cable only fires one strobe even with both strobes connected. For example, if I connect Cable 1 to Strobe A and Cable 2 to Strobe B, A fires but B does not. If I switch the cables 1-->B and 2-->A then B fires but A does not. When I disconnect the cables from the strobes and look at the tip of the fiber optic cables when the camera fires, I notice that one cable emits a bright light and the other problem cable emits a much dimmer light. It appears the problem cable isn't emitting enough light to fire the flash (I'm using Z240s). Anyone experience this before?

Been there done that. Good news is the D7000 is a more than capable camera and WHEN you get in a position to jump to the next iteration of DXXX camera you will be blown away. In terms of business, if you can shoot splits (pollock and ling might not be the best subjects for this! ) then those are highly marketable images. That said, a big dome would be great and you could migrate that over to a new housing in the future.

Way more than 5-10% quality increase by jumping to D500, IMO. Not sure how you're defining quality. Perhaps our definitions differ. If part of your definition of quality is also nailing WAY more keeper images, and tack sharp images at that, then jump to the D500. You won't be disappointed. Signed, Someone who moved from a D7000 to a D500

I, too, upgraded from a D7000 to a D500... I was blown away by the much improved keeper rate and the blazing fast autofocus. I shoot blind 95% of the time and can fully trust the D500 to obtain accurate focus even on Auto Area mode. I shoot exclusively wide-angle (hope to do more macro this coming year though). That said, I've been considering switching to FF Sony mirrorless cameras for a number of reasons. IMO, if you're considering the D850 you should also consider the Sony line of FF mirrorless cameras. I don't have any personal experience with Sony cameras, but found this thread helpful: Despite the advice of the posters, I'm still seriously considering the switch for a variety of reasons. Not sure how soon I'd do that, but in the meantime I'm pretty darn happy with my D500!

Hmm. This is more or less what I expected (the difficulty of getting inside the dome may prohibit proper scratch removal and thus full replacement or at least replacement of the acrylic portion).

Thanks, but I'm specifically asking about methods or tips for physically getting inside a dome to remove scratches. I'm well versed in removing scratching from the outside of a dome...

Any tips for getting inside an acrylic dome to remove scratches? Seemed I had some sand crystals on a microfibre cloth that scratched the bejeezus out of the inside of the dome. I'm using a Nauticam 8.5" acrylic port and the opening in the rear is fairly small. The scratches don't appear in photos unless the subject is super close to the dome. I haven't actually tried to buff anything out, but it looks like it's going to be a massive PITA. And there didn't appear to be any way to remove the rear backing plate (probably for good reason...).

6 pounds of weight seems grossly underweighted for a 7mm wetsuit, even in freshwater. I don't really know why the dive shop just gave you 6 pounds and not more for you to experiment with... In water as shallow as 10 ft, you won't really benefit from the effects of neoprene compression at depth. I would try 10 lbs and go from there. You should be trying this at different depths. My guess is even if you get the weight "right" you won't be taking many photos down at depth; as soon as you stop descending you're likely to begin ascending... unless you overweight yourself. Plus, a giant black thing descending down toward a fish comfy on the bottom is liable to scare the living daylights out of them. My experience in freshwater has always been to avoid this behaviour whenever possible as it seldom if ever works.

DOH. Boy do I feel dumb... Thanks, Mackman. Didn't dig far enough onto that port chart!!!

I cannot seem to find a definitive answer to this question: What (Nauticam) extension ring should be used on a Tokina 10-17 WITH Kenko 1.4x teleconverter?

Email Reef Photo. Dave H at Freshwaters Illustrated has taken great splits with this setup. I think there was a post about it on Nauticam's blog featuring Dave's work.

Really interesting and valid points all around. This is exactly why I posted this question! I had not considered the pixel size - more so simply the difference in image size from (for example) a 50% cropped image on the D500 vs. the A7RIII.

I'm considering mainly for two reasons: video and high MPs (primarily for the flexibility of cropping without significant reductions in IQ). I don't shoot macro at the moment, but interesting to hear your take. I like the idea of focus-peaking if I did start shooting macro.