kiliii

It is really unfortunate, because the system really has so much promise and can do a lot if it does work. Alas for now I don't see any good ways around the focus issues with Nikon or Canon mirrorless at the moment, as the problem seems to be strange quirks of how mirrorless cameras autofocus. I can't say I have any idea why Sony mirrorless seems to work, but the latest generation of them does appear to be just fine. I finally just threw in the towel and talked to Backscatter- they took the entire system back for store credit, (a gigantic impressive statement about their customer service). They have had other customers also having the same difficulties, and I'm sure their input will guide Nauticam. Nauticam should at the very least properly list technical specifications of cameras that do and do not work- because right now all the new cameras other than Sony are non-autofocus with the EMWL.

Hello all, I did a ton more testing in the pool here today and was both surprised and frustrated. For my setup the macro lens does autofocus at 5.6 when set between 5.6 and 32. And indeed the quality at 5.6 is pretty bad so I can certainly see why AF could have a problem. Nonetheless with the EMWL the focus is consistently behind the focus point, at all apertures and using all focus zone types on my Nikon Z7II. If I use AF-fine tune at -20, I can get the focus to be correct, but unfortunately this is distance dependent. What fine tune setting works up close doesn't work once the focus is on a subject further away. So that is not a viable solution either. I could possibly restrict the movement of the aperture lever on the macro lens to force it to focus at f/8 perhaps, but given that the focus is consistent (and thus behind) in my high-contrast focus testing, I don't think that it would help. It's weird that my EMWL doesn't work on my buddy's Canon R5 with 100mm in Nauticam housing either. He is having the exact same issue (different focusing unit). His shots appear heavily back focused as well.

Ahhh, yes Isaac, I just went back and read the second page of posts as well- and it all makes sense. I still don't understand the problem on my end though- my Nikon Z7II and all the Nikon mirrorless cameras actually focus at the aperture they are set, until smaller than f/5.6, at which point the camera will focus at f/5.6. It just might be that Nikon custom function setting, 'show settings in live view', I will do a test tomorrow to see if that fixes anything.

Hi Isaac, thanks for looking at this and reminding me about all the original issues. I had put out of my mind (aka repressed) all of this stuff for the last year as I have been on assignment and unable to use the EMWL, plus had to bite the bullet to buy a new lens, new port adapter and new focusing unit. Now I have double the lenses, double the focusing units, and double the port adapters and am no closer to a working EMWL. As I have gone through all the original posts here, I am reminded that there is no real workaround that involves autofocus on Nikon. I am going to be knocking on Nauticam's door and seeing what they are going to do about their non-functional product now that an upset photographer from National Geographic is unable to use their used-car-lemon of a lens system. What puzzles me the most is how it is that the focus shift aperture issue doesn't bother some of the shooters here. It obviously is messing with you and me, but everyone else seems to have it working on some level and that's very curious. That's it for now! Cheers, Kiliii

Gotcha, thanks Isaac! Here's the dropbox link to the full-size files then. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dwi6b3tr3bajkzh/AABvtkxt0taJfx_AAP87Ck8ba?dl=0

One more post for those who can't download the full-size jpegs above- two 100% crops, fisheye and EMWL.

Yes of course, a proper test is in order. I had a moment to do a pool test under controlled conditions. It's my fisheye at 130 compared to the EMWL with 130 lens. Same subject, almost the same exposure (f/11 vs f/16), 1/200 second, chose the sharpest of a set of 12). Focus point is on the number 12 on the checklist, more or less the center of the printed checklist page. You can see that focus is correct on both, and there is text both in front and behind the focus point. There's also writing on the reg hose to compare. Fullsize 48mpx images, uncropped, unedited, no sharpening applied. Any ideas?

Thanks for the support Isaac! I will upload some samples now. I'm here in Bonaire so if there's additional testing to be done I will do my best. I have a saltwater pool I can test in, just need some time to do it. I've attached 3 images at 100% crop. A stands for Aquatica housing, N for Nauticam (friend's housing), and FISH is fisheye lens vs the EMWL/Nikon F105 macro. I think you should see there's a tremendous loss in contrast and sharpness on the EMWL. It seems to me that there's a lot of what is apparent fringing, as if a diffusion or mist filter was attached to the front of my lens. Cheers everyone! Happy diving.

Hi everyone! Reporting in with latest experience with the EMWL with the 130 lens, new focusing unit and the adapted Nikon 104mm F-mount on a Nikon Z7II: Still looking pretty terrible. The results are really not at all sharp compared to the same results on my fisheye and almost look like smudgy iPhone noise-corrected images at 100%. It's marginally better than with the Nikon 105mm Z, but not much. The only variable left is the Saga port adapter on my Aquatica housing, but that was also replaced to accommodate the 105mm F-mount and the lens is tight up against the end of the flat port. Getting to be very frustrated with this now around $10k setup that remains unusable. I might as well have gotten another rebreather, or really, anything else. Ah well, done wingeing! Am going to try putting the EMWL on my friend's Nauticam R5 and see if that helps it any.

@Alex, it’s possible it is the port but I don’t think likely. The port was made specifically for the lens and it butts right up to the glass @Isaac, thanks for the reminder! Shoot I have focusing unit #2 and really don’t want to purchase another one unless the EMWL starts magically working far better than it has!

Interesting, thanks for the reports and info everyone! I'm still getting results that are nowhere remotely this level of sharpness and clarity, and I've been messing about with it for a dozen dives this last week. I'm glad to see that the EMWL is capable of producing good results, but I'm certainly not seeing them with the Nikon 105Z on the Z7II. I'm going to pick up a 105macro in F mount and try that combination with the EMWL and see if that improves the image quality substantially. After using a fisheye, 105 macro along, and with the EMWL, I've had to basically throw out all the EMWL images from this last trip in BC. From what I can tell at this point I'm not really having focus problems so much as the sharpness and clarity are nowhere near the quality of other lens combinations. I'll test the older 105 macro in F mount and report back. Fingers crossed!

I just happened some more interesting information about focus shift due to aperture- apparently it is a phenomenon that happens only with phase detect autofocus. Nikon Z's autofocus in AF-C mode (all I've used so far) is Phase detect, but in AF-S mode it uses a hybrid mode ending with contrast detect. It also has a contrast detect only mode. I'll give the contrast modes a test and see what I can come up with. AF-S is not ideal in a moving underwater situation but it is vastly preferable to manual AF! Hope it works!

Hi everyone, thank you for the excellent and informative responses. Re: Isaac, I have definitely been experiencing back-focusing issues and I am sure it's what Edward has just informed us about as well. It's interesting that it affects the whole variety of setups with focus shift due to aperture. My macro lens, the new Nikon Z 105mm is supposed to have virtually no focus shift due to aperture changes, but then again maybe the EMWL magnifies even minor errors into significant ones. I don't think what I'm seeing is problems due to diffraction really. Almost all of the problem is due to missed focus, after reviewing a hundred of my EMWL images. Very very occasionally I hit focus dead on, and I can see now that it was by accident, as when the lens back-focused and then I drifted into better position by accident. Re: Thomas, nice clean images! I think you're getting good results but I do think that it's because you're helped out by the f22 DOF. But then again perhaps your particular setup is less prone to this focus shift issue? I would think it would be affected even more! I've been hunting all day for possible solutions for my Nikon Z setup, or perhaps with a Canon setup RF setup (I like the EMWL enough in theory to consider particular camera/lens combos), but at the moment the only mirrorless camera that seems to provide the option of autofocusing at whatever aperture you set, especially small apertures (f8+) is the Fuji GFX. My Nikons actually all stop down to f5.6 and focus there, so in theory I could use the EMWL at f5.6 and it would focus correctly, but really f5.6 is quite limiting in terms of depth of field, especially considering what I use the EMWL for- macro distances. f16 would be more like it. Re: Edward's 3 workarounds, only one is actually a workaround- that's using manual focus and focus peaking. And of course it's doable, just a huge bummer given that the promise of using the EMWL to a large degree was the ability to use autofocus. If the focus shift is as sensitive to small changes as it sounds, manual focus might be very difficult as well. The first workaround, (use live view) doesn't really help the problem on mirrorless cameras, and the second (ask the camera to focus at the final aperture) is not actually possible on Nikon, Canon or Sony at the moment. I can really only think of one additional possible workaround- with the lens set at the aperture you would use, and focusing at around the distance you would use, you can preset AF fine tune to correct for the focus shift problem of a particular lens/camera combo, through controlled testing topside (with the EMWL immersed in water through the neoprene sock trick). Even if that works, it would be very restrictive, as it means that your aperture will be locked in at whatever you set the AF fine tune for (although maybe focus shift isn't that much from f11 to f16?), and also your focus distance has to be the same as test conditions as well. That seems like a huge drawback. Any more thoughts? I sure wish we could find a way to make this thing do what it was supposed to. As a professional I think unless I can find a way to make AF more reliable I can't actually use it for work.

Hi all! I've been working with my new EMWL and I love it generally. I’ve been having sharpness issues with the EMWL, though, even when I am shooting with just strobe light, 1/200 at f20 and the 100 degree objective. I haven’t been able to figure out what the cause is. It seems to happen even in good viz (40'+), so I don’t think it’s a problem with muck in between the wet lenses- but i've been diving it in viz from 40' to 15' so it varies. One thing that might be important is that I am using a Saga port adapter specifically for the Nauticam EMWL on my Aquatica housing (yes yes I know). Saga has been producing a number of these and they haven't had any complaints, so probably not the issue. It focuses just fine with this combination so it seems like this shouldn’t be the problem? It's possible it's a focusing problem in general, although even when I can't see focus is spot-on, the critical sharpness just isn't there. I'm including 2 EMWL images, shot at 1/100, f16 and 2 Fisheye images shot at f/5.6. The fisheye is even on a 1.5x teleconverter! Anyone have any ideas? Cheers, Kiliii

Still have this? Interested in the 130 objective lens!