For me, the R5II is only a better camera than the R5C for video if there's a significant boost in dynamic range. And that remains to be seen, when it's out and in the hands of reviewers.

 

The enhancements for photography I would say (especially for underwater) are pretty inconsequential. I've been looking for a smaller, photo-first camera, and was waiting for the R5II (and R1) to see how it would stack up against the Sony A1. From what I've seen so far, A1 is still the more capable camera, even 5 years old. It's got that 1/400s shutter (R5II is still stuck at 1/250th), matching 30fps still capability, and a slightly faster sensor readout speed. Yes, you don't get 8k60 or raw video internally, but raw video is pretty impractical for every-day shooting.

 

The real benefit I see with the Sony A1 though is the lens ecosystem for underwater use. There's unique lenses that aren't available on the Canon side so far, like the 16-25F2.8G, 24-40F2.8G, Laowa 10mm Autofocus prime and (perhaps less unique, the 16-35F2.8 GM that can be used with good results with a 180mm dome). Sony also has better quality lenses for use with Nauticam's wet optics, like the 28-60F3.5-F5.6 (by all accounts, better than the Canon RF 24-50F3.5-6.3) for the WWL-1, WACP-C, WACP-1 and FCP, and, likely, the 24-50F2.8 G for the WACP-C/1/FCP. 

Where Canon comes ahead is the RF 14-35F4 for use with the WACP-2 if you want the absolute best wide angle quality (and can make peace with the price and size) and the RF 10-20L4 zoom for the widest rectilinear zoom (which needs a 230mm dome for good results though). 

 

So.. if size is a consideration, I think as of today, the Sony system is better for photography underwater. On the video side things are more matched, though even there the A7SIII is a powerhouse not to be discounted. And it's helpful that you can use the A1 and A7SIII in the same housing. 

On 7/23/2024 at 12:38 PM, DreiFish said:

Where Canon comes ahead is the RF 14-35F4 for use with the WACP-2 if you want the absolute best wide angle quality

The other place that Canon comes out ahead of Sony is the native fisheye, which is a must have for stills shooting.  Plus the RF14-35L will work with the FCP, although in limited zoom (or without the hood).  This is a video thread, so the fisheye and FCP is less relevant, but for hybrid shooters - a key decision point. 

 

I don't think it is a lens decision between Sony and Canon but lenses that work with Nauticam optics, that makes the Sony's have a potential advantage. Anything behind a dome (not a WACP or a WWL), I don't see any advantage to Sony with what is on the market.

 

I was hoping for more with the R5 ii for underwater video. 8k 60p is pretty much the only interesting part but not enough to make me want to buy it and a new housing for it.

 

19 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

The other place that Canon comes out ahead of Sony is the native fisheye, which is a must have for stills shooting.  Plus the RF14-35L will work with the FCP, although in limited zoom (or without the hood).  This is a video thread, so the fisheye and FCP is less relevant, but for hybrid shooters - a key decision point. 

 

I don't think it is a lens decision between Sony and Canon but lenses that work with Nauticam optics, that makes the Sony's have a potential advantage. Anything behind a dome (not a WACP or a WWL), I don't see any advantage to Sony with what is on the market.

 

I was hoping for more with the R5 ii for underwater video. 8k 60p is pretty much the only interesting part but not enough to make me want to buy it and a new housing for it.

 

 

By all accounts the Ef 8-15 fisheye works great on sony's latest cameras with an adapter. I've used it before with the Sony A7RII and it was more than adequate for wide angle photos. So.. I don't think the native fisheye argument holds much water. You can use the same lens with Sony cameras and metabones adapter just fine, and many people do. Aditionally, there is a conversion available to use the Nikonos 13 fisheye as a 'native' Sony lens, which is not an option with Canon currently. So on balance, for wide angle photography, if fisheye is your thing, I still think Sony system offers more options. You also can theoretically use the new Sigma 15mm F1.4 fisheye lens natively on Sony, though I haven't heard of anyone trying that underwater yet. Also, if you want the EF 8-15 + 2xTC, you can do that on Sony with either the Kenko EF 2x TC or the higher quality Sony FE 2x TC. With Canon, you can't use the RF 2x TC, only the Kenko.

 

Now when it comes to Nauticam optics, it's a hard call. Sony system has better lenses that can be used with the WWL-1B, WACP-C and WACP-1. Canon has the 14-35 and 15-35 for use with the WACP-2. With Sony, you can use the 16-35 GM II with the WACP-2, which is a slightly sharper lens than either the RF 14-35 or 15-35, but you do only get 128 degrees diagonal at the wide end vs. 140 degrees with the 14mm. But even there, there is the Sony 14mm F1.8 GM prime that probably gets you better overall IQ than any of the zoom lenses, and also the Sigma 14mm F1.4 Art lens. So what the Sony system loses with the WACP-2 is perhaps a bit of zoom versatility, but not image quality to Canon. 

 

Nauticam FCP also favors Sony on balance. You can use it with the Sony 28-60 and the newer 24-50F2.8 G lens. Plus the 14mmF1.8 prime for circular fisheye. With Canon, if you want to use the full zoom range, you're stuck with either the 24-50F4-6.3 lens which is a pretty unimpressive kit lens, or the (quite old) EF 28-70F3.5-F4.5 zoom, which is a touch sharper, but still not great. Your best option for image quality might be the RF 14-35 which gets you both a circular fisheye at 14mm and limited fisheye zoom between 28-35mm. But then it's only a 170 to 122 degree zoom range, similar to the 8-15mm fisheye + 1.4x TC.

 

When it comes to lenses behind a dome.. you get a auto-focus capable Laowa 10mm (which is sharper and can be used with a smaller dome (140mm dome) than the Canon RF 10-20mm (needs 230mm dome) -- I've tested both). You also get the 16-35 F2.8 GM II and new 16-25F2.8 G lenses, which are as good as any zoom lens on Canon and (unlike the Canon options) can perform well with a 180mm dome. So perhaps less pronounced an advantage for Sony lens selection when it comes to rectilinear lenses behind a dome, but if size enters the equation, the advantage is big -- none of the Canon rectilinear prime options work well with anything less than a 230mm dome. 

 

Wholistically, I'd argue that the lens selection on Sony is a bit better than currently with Canon for underwater use when it comes to wide angle. Macro is a more balanced picture with some wins for Canon. 

Edited August 2, 20241 yr by DreiFish

4 hours ago, DreiFish said:

 

By all accounts the Ef 8-15 fisheye works great on sony's latest cameras with an adapter. I've used it before with the Sony A7RII and it was more than adequate for wide angle photos. So.. I don't think the native fisheye argument holds much water. You can use the same lens with Sony cameras and metabones adapter just fine, and many people do. Aditionally, there is a conversion available to use the Nikonos 13 fisheye as a 'native' Sony lens, which is not an option with Canon currently. So on balance, for wide angle photography, if fisheye is your thing, I still think Sony system offers more options. You also can theoretically use the new Sigma 15mm F1.4 fisheye lens natively on Sony, though I haven't heard of anyone trying that underwater yet. Also, if you want the EF 8-15 + 2xTC, you can do that on Sony with either the Kenko EF 2x TC or the higher quality Sony FE 2x TC. With Canon, you can't use the RF 2x TC, only the Kenko.

 

 

=> Just out of interest: are you sure that one cannot use the Canon 8-15mm fisheye on R mount cameras with the 2x RF TC? The Canon 8-15mm is not a native RF lens, but constructed for EF mount. Therefore it needs a glasless adapter to work with R mount cameras (in this case the adapter is provided by Canon instead of Metabones and the length of the adapter is different to the Metabones adapter). It may well be that this adapter provides enough space for the protruding element of the 2x TC (but I did not test it nor measure it)...

20 hours ago, DreiFish said:

By all accounts the Ef 8-15 fisheye works great on sony's latest cameras with an adapter.

I have not read that, and instead it seems a group of people that it works for and those that it doesn't work ideally.  Alex M had a not great experience with it and was told that he needed a new version and updated firmware - that is where my hesitance comes from. I also know many many people adapt this to Sony with great results.   Shrug.

 

I guess my point was that behind a dome, both cameras have superb options where the choice should be the body, size, performance etc.  I,  personally, adapt within a brand (as the RF mount has a different space between the sensor and mount requiring the ef-rf adaptor) but not across brand (convering signal) making Sony's lack of native fisheye a decision point for me. However, the wonderful optics of nauticam really pushed the option to make Sony's options superb, and many routinely use the Canon 8-15 on the Sony system.

 

Because of the lens choices, either ecosystem - including the R5II - are amazingly capable.  Personally, I am really looking forward to comparisons between the R5II and the R6II for 4k 60p.  I have switched to the R6ii for most of my video as the quality is really great - even better than the R5 - and the body is cheaper. 

On 8/2/2024 at 4:53 AM, DreiFish said:

Wholistically, I'd argue that the lens selection on Sony is a bit better than currently with Canon for underwater use when it comes to wide angle. Macro is a more balanced picture with some wins for Canon. 

 

I would revise this statement into: the selection is " more mainstream compatible " for the expensive topside lenses and kit lenses on SONY.

 

Looking back at my latest CANON experience with several non-L and simple STM lenses in place among five R-mount shooters, I must report back that the cheap RF 15-30 STM out-stomps the highly expensive Canon L versions (topside optimized lenses) in that range. So if you have not bought them yet, don't go for the RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM or the RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM.

 

You can save money and go for the: RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM !

 

Also a total surprise and MUST BUY + USE lens is the cheap Canon RF 16 STM. That lens is ULTRA SHARP (even) behind (small) domes. One diver used it the whole trip and it turned out to be surpirisingly flexible. The fact that you can focus on small dome ports allows you to shoot fish portraits with it. It was really amazingly adaptive for a prime lens. There is this kind of semi-macro mode available on that lens, if you get really close. I am going to get one myself; even though I already own the overlapping Canon RF 15-30 STM.

 

The no-brainer in the Canon RF System is still to get the 8-15mm fisheye zoom with EF converter and a 2.0x or 1.4x Teleconverter from Kenko. That will safe you a lot of travel weight and size and get you supreme image quality where other systems have to invest in optically corrected underwater glas. The Canon EF 8-15mm F4 alone is a must have lens in your underwater portfolio. If you do not need strong dual IS (lens+camera) the 2.0x TC will safe you from having to buy a wide angle zoom.

Edited August 9, 20241 yr by Adventurer

5 hours ago, Adventurer said:

 

I would revise this statement into: the selection is " more mainstream compatible " for the expensive topside lenses and kit lenses on SONY.

 

Looking back at my latest CANON experience with several non-L and simple STM lenses in place among five R-mount shooters, I must report back that the cheap RF 15-30 STM out-stomps the highly expensive Canon L versions (topside optimized lenses) in that range. So if you have not bought them yet, don't go for the RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM or the RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM.

 

You can save money and go for the: RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM !

 

 

 

Also a total surprise and MUST BUY + USE lens is the cheap Canon RF 16 STM. That lens is ULTRA SHARP (even) behind (small) domes. One diver used it the whole trip and it turned out to be surpirisingly flexible. The fact that you can focus on small dome ports allows you to shoot fish portraits with it. It was really amazingly adaptive for a prime lens. There is this kind of semi-macro mode available on that lens, if you get really close. I am going to get one myself; even though I already own the overlapping Canon RF 15-30 STM.

 

The no-brainer in the Canon RF System is still to get the 8-15mm fisheye zoom with EF converter and a 2.0x or 1.4x Teleconverter from Kenko. That will safe you a lot of travel weight and size and get you supreme image quality where other systems have to invest in optically corrected underwater glas. The Canon EF 8-15mm F4 alone is a must have lens in your underwater portfolio. If you do not need strong dual IS (lens+camera) the 2.0x TC will safe you from having to buy a wide angle zoom.

 

Hi Adventurer,

I have compared the RF 14-35L vs the RF 15-30 and RF 10-20L lenses. Thread here:

 

The 15-30 is marginally sharper than the 14-35, but it's a pretty minor difference. The RF 10-20 is actually better than both of them at 14 and 15mm.  But it's certainly not a night and day difference, and many may still prefer the 14-35mm for the greater zoom range.

 

As for the 16mm.. I have to disagree. I've also tested this combination, and the real issue is that it needs a negative extension of about 20mm on N120 to put the entry pupil at the center of the dome. Comparing it directly with the RF 14-35mm at 16mm, the 16mm prime isn't really any sharper (but it's not worse either). Maybe just marginally better than the RF14-35 in the corners. 

 

 

Finally, while the 8-15mm fisheye + 2x TC gives you a nice zoom range, there's definitely a noticeable image quality degradation and loss of light transmission, and worse autofocus. But at the end of the day, I think Sony still offers a better solution for using the 8-15mm Canon fisheye with a metabones adapter and the Sony 2x TC, which is optically superior to the Kenko 2x TC. Maybe the autofocus is slightly more finicky, but it's still usable (you don't need much from the AF system when shooting this wide). 

On 8/9/2024 at 12:16 AM, Adventurer said:

 

The no-brainer in the Canon RF System is still to get the 8-15mm fisheye zoom

I'm not really sure how a thread about the Canon R5 II ended up being a Sony vs Canon lens thread... but I wanted to agree and emphasize this statement.  Owning just about every Canon lens discussed in this thread (except the 15-35 F/2.8 L IS and the 10-20), the lens I take almost exclusively is the 8-15 without teleconverter. Cristal sharp, small port, easy to travel with. I may play with a teleconverter at some point, but I like just shooting it as a 15mm Fish Prime. 

 

And thanks Adventurer for the recommendation of the RF 15-30mm - I keep that as a backup but I will now put it through the paces underwater to see if I like it better than the 14-35.  I tend to like L- color more than corner sharpness, but haven't played with it enough to really see if the non-L loses anything when it comes to realized images.

On 8/9/2024 at 6:21 PM, DreiFish said:

for the 16mm.. I have to disagree. I've also tested this combination, and the real issue is that it needs a negative extension of about 20mm on N120 to put the entry pupil at the center of the dome.

My apologies, but you are testing and viewing the world through an Nauticam only housing perspective, and maybe you could note more often that there are also other brands where things work (different) and which you have not tested yet.

 

On INON housings and domes that lens works excellent and also with a Marelux housing + my custom dome you even need an very slim extension ring to make it work in optimum. It might also work excellent on Ikelite systems, which I have not seen in action.

 

However I highly appreciate all the well documented and intensive testing, Dreifish, that you share here in the forums on various gear brands. Thank you for all the hard work on gear testing and being so resourceful.

16 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

I may play with a teleconverter at some point, but I like just shooting it as a 15mm Fish Prime. 

Has anyone pondered with the idea or even tried to utilize the new RF 1.4x or 2.0x white teleconverters from Canon?

 

I am just asking myself it is possible to construct the gear as follows:

 

Cam Body -> RF1.4x Telecon -> RF-EF Converter -> Canon 8-15mm Fisheye F4 L lens 

 

..might of course also work with RF2.0x telecon.

 

I own the old EF Canon TC 2.0x and the only problem used to be the protruded inner rubber lens. If it‘s similar size it might be eaten up by the RF-EF converter. 😎 I wonder if there would be other limitations preventing to go this path?

 

Alternatively there are two new TCs from Viltrox and Sigma which could be useful, instead of the Kenko.

Good question.  Need to first confirm if the RF-EF adaptor would mount on the RF TCs.  Canon designed them so that a very limited lens selection can accept them. 

The RF 2x is not compatible with a lot of lense... no, They are only a few number of lens who can be mounted on the RF1.4x and RF2x. It's better to say that this way.

One is sure the EF-RF converter is NOT compatible with RF2x 

 

On 7/24/2024 at 12:38 AM, DreiFish said:

So.. if size is a consideration, I think as of today, the Sony system is better for photography underwater. On the video side things are more matched, though even there the A7SIII is a powerhouse not to be discounted. And it's helpful that you can use the A1 and A7SIII in the same housing. 

Yes. 

On 8/11/2024 at 10:38 AM, Adventurer said:

My apologies, but you are testing and viewing the world through an Nauticam only housing perspective, and maybe you could note more often that there are also other brands where things work (different) and which you have not tested yet.

 

On INON housings and domes that lens works excellent and also with a Marelux housing + my custom dome you even need an very slim extension ring to make it work in optimum. It might also work excellent on Ikelite systems, which I have not seen in action.

 

However I highly appreciate all the well documented and intensive testing, Dreifish, that you share here in the forums on various gear brands. Thank you for all the hard work on gear testing and being so resourceful.

You're right, other housing manufacturers have a shorter lens mount to front of housing flange distance (and for Marelux, wider inner port mount diameter, 125mm instead of 120mm) on their full frame Canon RF housings. This offers a few more choices in terms of getting the optimal lens placement without vignetting. I have no doubt that you can get the RF16mm prime to perform optically better with no extension / 10mm extension on Marelux housings, which I believe are about 20mm shallower in depth than the Nauticam n120 RF housings. You also can achieve less vignetting with wider 10mm lenses I believe).

 

Whether that placement flexibility significantly improves the optical performance of the RF16 prime behind a 140mm or 230mm dome compared to what can achieved on Nauticam n120 housings is a separate empirical question -- I don't know. Perhaps with the right extension, the RF16 will actually perform better optically than the RF 14-35L or 15-30 or 10-20L lenses. It would give you a very small package with the 140mm dome. But.. of course, the tradeoff will still be zoom versatility, which is a significant tradeoff to have.

 

I really don't think the RF16mm swings the balance towards Canon when comparing Canon RF vs. Sony FE full-frame systems for underwater wide-angle use. Sony has unique prime wide angle options too, like the 14F1.8 GM lens and the Laowa 10mm autofocus prime.