adamhanlon

230mm is absolutely the right sized dome with the 10-24mm. Bear in mind it is a rectilinear lens, so corner sharpness is a significant issue with anything smaller... The issue is not resolution with a smaller dome! I would agree that 160s is quite slow for dolphins. Your D500 will cope with higher ISO, and you can do things to deal with noise in post. Better a bit of noise than a blurry image...

Fascinating discussion! I have not shot the Canon 60mm, but have used its Nikon equivalent with the D500 (cropped sensor) and find that it is an ideal solution. It's close focusing ability more than makes up for its lack of focal length. In terms of getting close to subjects, this takes patience, but is often possible. By happy coincidence (?) the Nauticam SMC-1 is a great combination with it. As others have mentioned above, using a diopter/macro conversion lens reduces the minimum focusing distance of the lens. With lenses that inherently focus very close, this advantage can be lost, but the SMC-1 seems to be an excellent performer. Apologies for distracting with information about Nikon rather than Canon.

Massimo... The test shot data for the WACP 1 is here: https://wetpixel.com/articles/review-nauticam-wide-angle-corrector-port (including the Zemax data). I would expect that we will be running a review of the WACP 2 soon too Someone on another venue suggested that the barrel distortion on the WACP was awful. My response was "compared to what?" He is a video shooter using Digital Cinema Gear and seemed to think that he could get better results with a PL lens behind dome port. Once I explained a little optical theory, he realized that his results were based on the way he had set up the WACP and his lens choice (and the combination of both). @Edward Lai's point is well made however. No wide angle lens can eliminate barrel distortion. What is unique about the water contact optics is how little of it they have, particularly when compared with conventional dome/land combinations. When this is combined with the option of using the lenses at large apertures, this makes them a very attractive option. Of course, whether an individual feels that the quality is worth paying (large) amount of money for is very much a personal decision.

The D7000 is a very fine camera, but is now several generations old. It is of course still capable of much better images than the ones I can take For scenics, and particularly wrecks, I would have a look at the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.4-4.5. It needs a big dome (Seacam Superdome) so does not represent a small investment. However both the dome and lenses will stay with you when and if you upgrade the camera. The bottomline with wide angle is that the bigger the dome, the better it works optically. This needs to be offset against usability, weight, portability, proximity to subjects and expense. Fisheye lenses are much more tolerant of smaller domes due to their inherent distortion, but also bend all the "straight" lines in the image. Even so, a bigger one will still perform better (although you may struggle too ee the difference), and this is especially true when using big apertures. I actually prefer the 60mm f/2.8 Micro over the 105mm on DX cameras. It's close focusing ability is amazing. It is definitely macro lens though, so would suit situation/dives when the viz and/or sea conditions are not ideal. The Sigma 17-70mm is an interesting lens. It is a good scouting lens, but I found that the quality was not great. This is probably due to the fact that's nodal point changes (making dome port position a compromise) and the macro end being limited by the fact that you have a dome in front of it! I would also investigate using the green water versions of the color correction filters (Magic or Keldan). These can get amazing results in challenging conditions.

The Sea&Sea correction lens are lens and dome port specific. They actually correct the curvature in the virtual image with specific dome ports. Of course, Sea&Sea have designed them to work with their ports. The only way to find out how they work with other domes is to experiment! In addition, the problem of soft corners at big apertures is particularly relevant with full frame cameras and their inherently shallow depth of field. This may be why there is a dearth of information about using it on DX lenses. However, I can report that the performance of the D500, 10-24mm and a 230mm dome is very good without the correction lens. I have certainly not felt the need for it down to f/8 or so. I think if you want to go much below this, the option really becomes either converted Nikonos or WACP! Adam

I would contact Aquatica in Canada directly. They will be able to help you. I gather they are now supplying parts to owners in the UK. Adam

True, and I would not really disagree, but in their review of the G7X III, from the quote above, they are saying that its 24mm behind a flat port allows you to "shoot both wide angle and macro on the same dive." Surely it is the same for both? If the "advantage"of the Canon is that you can add an accessory lens to achieve a wider FOV, then the Nauticam option offers that same advantage: 1. Add the flip converter to the Nauticam housing, and can add any standard 67mm wide-angle converter. 2. Add the the N50 Short Port with Bayonet Mount, this allows the user to add WWL. I can't see why they suggest that this is an advantage unique to the G7?

I'm not sure where the information in this review is coming from. It is entirely and factually incorrect. With my (Nauticam) RX100 MKVI housing, the standard port offer the full zoom range...24-200mm. No problem using it for both macro and wide angle on a dive with the standard port if you wish. You can (with this housing) also add a flip adaptor to use wet lenses or chose to add ports that allow the use of other wet lens options if you chose. This is also true with the NA-RX100 VII housing. As sadly seems to be frequently the case with some of the Bluewater reviews, they have got their facts wrong... @PhilMed- All the RX100 series offers separate aperture and shutter speed dials? I'm not sure what you are suggesting here I don't find Sony's controls any more or less intuitive that Canon's and while I'm no fan of Sony's menus, I don't love Canon's much either! I don't really see this as being a significant difference, once you get used to them. I do prefer Canon's color treatment to Sony's but can normally fix this easily in post. The extra 100mm of reach on the Sony provides some really interesting options, both topside and underwater. The 200mm end is actually very usable. Combined with a macro lens, it offers an amazing super macro option in a very small bundle. The ability to use WWL lenses on Nauticam housings makes for really amazing wide angle performance.

Gulen is amazing, but a very different proposition! No guides, cool water (especially at peak nudibranch season in March) and super interesting (but definitely less abundant) critters. During the above mentioned season there are nudibranchs everywhere! They run a nudibranch safari, which is amazing and is great opportunity to get involved in some very cool citizen science. https://wetpixel.com/articles/the-shootout-2018-is-underway-in-lembeh-and-gulen The Lembeh vs Gulen Shootout may be running again in 2021...we ran one in 2016 and 2018. They are really amazing events.. https://wetpixel.com/articles/report-gulen-nudibranch-safari My feeling is that the Red Sea has everything that Cozumel can offer, but a lot more of it!

I kind of get the decision between the Maldives and the Red Sea (although as you mention, for macro, the Maldives does not present any advantages), but Cozumel is not in the same league as the other two destinations. It is a nice island and the diving is great, but it lacks the diversity of either of the other two. It is certainly no better for critters than the Red Sea. My experience is that bar spotted eagle rays, you would have the same chances of pelagics in the Red Sea as at Cozumel. Anything can (and does) happen at Ras Mohamed! Pelagic action is pretty much guaranteed in the Maldives... Shore diving is the Red Sea somewhat gets round the temperature issue.

Singapore and Indonesia have also joined the list: https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3048659/coronavirus-here-are-countries-and-airlines-restricting This would be for anyone coming from or transiting via mainland China (including Hong Kong). Adam

@Interceptor121 The PADI Self Reliant Diver is officially recognized by CDWS and allows those that hold it to dive without a buddy. There is no problem getting hold of gear to dive without a buddy. I have done it on numerous occasions with multiple resorts and operations! Here is the official guidance: http://www.cdws.travel/documents/rules-regulations/CDWS SOLO Diving Policy-V6 (2).pdf (PDF) The "local laws" argument is propaganda put out by dive ops in order to earn income by providing guides. When I worked there, we used to tell people it was against local "law" to wear gloves, which is also incorrect. But it was a good way of deterring them from wearing them...:) http://www.cdws.travel/documents/rules-regulations/gloves and knives.pdf @sinetwo Na'ama Bay itself has limited diving. I would recommend one of the hotel further North that have the "Gardens" as their house reefs. These reefs are used a "destination" for the day boats operating out of Na'ama Bay! There is really nice hard and soft corals, along with host of macro critters. I have seen both mantas and a whale shark there (but this is very rare!). Ras um Sid has a great house reef (again a destination reef for the day boats), and there are definitely macro opportunities, but it is a relatively small reef compared to the Gardens. I would also agree that there are great options at other venues in the Red Sea. Nuweiba's house reef was great for muck diving, but it is challenging to get to as flights to Taba have not resumed yet. I dived a fair bit at Port Ghalib, and it has excellent macro, but it is all done from boats, which increases the cost and tends to limit repeat visits to the same areas of reef. In general, it takes me a few visits to figure out how to get the best of the subjects that are available. As others have pointed out, February is a windy and relatively cold time in the Red Sea. When I lived there and in subsequent visits, I wear a drysuit! Shore diving avoids all the hassle of cold wetsuits out on boats all day and is much more pleasant!

Do your Self Reliant Diver qualification at home. There are a number of UK operations that offer it. The advantage of shore diving is that you can visit the same spots multiple times and really get to know where the critters are, what times they emerge, how the light is etc. This is incredibly productive photographically. I would argue that it is much more productive than any of the normal "coach tours" that most non photo specific liveaboards or day boat operations provide. In fact, it can be more productve than this trips too... Adam

You will have to do your own spotting..which is a good experience in itself. Dive operations are great and efficient, but not particularly photo friendly. Unless you have a buddy, I would plan on diving without one (get a Self Reliant Diver certification). The advantage to this is that you get to chose when and where you dive too. If you don't want to do this, I am sure they will provide a DM for a fee, but don't expect them to find critters for you..

If you are after a macro trip, shore diving around Sharm would be a great option. Lots of really good varied macro life. Nudibranchs, Octopus, shrimps, porcelain crabs, morays and heaps of fish portrait material. With full frame, a 105mm is great! Try the Hyatt Regency. Their house reef is the Gardens, and offers some really good macro opportunities. Adam