Heading to Norway this weekend for my 3rd trip to the herring hunt amd hoping for Orca and Humpies again.

Last time I went A7R2 with 16-35mm f2.8 and the smaller 180mm Dome. 

Light is always a premium this time of year and not always available when the action is. 

I have acquired the WWL-1 with the SEL FE 28-60mm F4-5.6 amd the A7RV.... 

Will i stick to the dome? Bring the wwl as a backup? What do you think?

 

 

Edited October 29, 2024Oct 29 by HCIdiver

Surely the RV has much better AF and better sensor than R2. 
Have you been happy with IQ (edges?) and AF performance last time? In tricky conditions it’s more important to know how to deal with the cam, lens and focus than to be one f-stop better. 

The WWL has slightly wider coverage compared to a 16-35, something like the same horizontal field as a 14mm rectilinear, but the advantage for low light is you don't need to stop down as much with the WWL where you should be able to shoot at f5.6 or so.  I imagine corners will be dark water though - what f-stop did you use with the 16-35 previously? 

To be clear, im using a7r5. Choice is just with the lens setup. I guess u helped answer my question, ill pack both! 

Only thing the wwl cant do is split shots but not many opportunities for them in the fjords anyway. 

1 hour ago, Chris Ross said:

The WWL has slightly wider coverage compared to a 16-35, something like the same horizontal field as a 14mm rectilinear, but the advantage for low light is you don't need to stop down as much with the WWL where you should be able to shoot at f5.6 or so.  I imagine corners will be dark water though - what f-stop did you use with the 16-35 previously? 

Wider is useful in a bait ball.

Sometimes u have to shoot down and sometimes theres no light to speak of so the 2.8 was used for sure. 

In brighter conditions it might be ok to use higher fstops. I guess ill play it by ear. 

I did try the 8-15mm canon but found it wasnt able for the dark conditions and abondoned it one year. 

12 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

The WWL [...] but the advantage for low light is you don't need to stop down as much with the WWL where you should be able to shoot at f5.6 or so.

I wasn't aware that you can't shoot with the 16-35 wide open - then also my recommendation would be to use the WWL

It's not that you can't shoot the 16-35 wide, more if you would want to.  Well if you are shooting wide open the 16-35 has an advantage for sure, but a rectilinear in a dome has major edge issues at f2.8, so it depends if there's anything important there.  If you were happy with 16-35 at f2.8 then the WWL combo at f4 should be  a little better on the edges.  But basically means with the WWL you would need to shoot 1 stop higher ISO or one stop slower shutter speed compared to the 16-35.

 

You didn't say what ISO you were shooting, if you believe DXOmark, the noise performance of the RII and RV are very close, the RV has an edge in dynamic range but only at low ISO and the two cameras are quite close beyond ISO1600.  Noise should all be in the dark water (mostly) so processing to clean that up selectively should be possible. 

At the same (wide) aperture, the WWL has better corners. One must add, however, that corners are not really important for most of the photos under these circumstances (big fish/whale in open water)...

It is, of course, a matter of personal preference, but I prefer the fisheye-like character of WWL/WACP in most cases: the object in the center gets emphasized and more hefty, while the periphery gets compressed...

 

I will go to Mafia Island/Tansania in two weeks and hopefully we will encounter whale sharks and whales there. Similar situation, but (hopefully) more light. I am sure I will use my WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm for most of the time...

 

I plan to use 1/320s, f/5.6 - f/8 and variable ISO as startup settings (A7R5).

Not sure about AF yet, AF of A7R5 is very good, but too many options. I have the camera&housing set so that I can set "AF-Subject Detection" ON/OFF with the record button, C2 to set the "Focus Area" and C3 to toggle "Recognition Target"...

 

 

Wolfgang

Edited October 30, 2024Oct 30 by Architeuthis

4 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

It's not that you can't shoot the 16-35 wide, more if you would want to.  Well if you are shooting wide open the 16-35 has an advantage for sure, but a rectilinear in a dome has major edge issues at f2.8, so it depends if there's anything important there.  If you were happy with 16-35 at f2.8 then the WWL combo at f4 should be  a little better on the edges.  But basically means with the WWL you would need to shoot 1 stop higher ISO or one stop slower shutter speed compared to the 16-35.

 

You didn't say what ISO you were shooting, if you believe DXOmark, the noise performance of the RII and RV are very close, the RV has an edge in dynamic range but only at low ISO and the two cameras are quite close beyond ISO1600.  Noise should all be in the dark water (mostly) so processing to clean that up selectively should be possible. 

The first two visits to Skjervoy i shot the a7r2 at 1600iso max. An example shooting side and slightly down is my orca family shot. 

Edited October 30, 2024Oct 30 by HCIdiver

26 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

At the same (wide) aperture, the WWL has better corners. One must add, however, that corners are not really important for most of the photos under these circumstances (big fish/whale in open water)...

It is, of course, a matter of personal preference, but I prefer the fisheye-like character of WWL/WACP in most cases: the object in the center gets emphasized and more hefty, while the periphery gets compressed...

 

I will go to Mafia Island/Tansania in two weeks and hopefully we will encounter whale sharks and whales there. Similar situation, but (hopefully) more light. I am sure I will use my WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm for most of the time...

 

I plan to use 1/320s, f/5.6 - f/8 and variable ISO as startup settings (A7R5).

Not sure about AF yet, AF of A7R5 is very good, but too many options. I have the camera&housing set so that I can set "AF-Subject Detection" ON/OFF with the record button, C2 to set the "Focus Area" and C3 to toggle "Recognition Target"...

 

 

Wolfgang

I hope we both get good luck! Thanks for sharing this. Evening comes early in Norway so plenty of time to plan the next days setup and settings.  Unless the sun jumps out the settings dont change much either. 

For focus i might try subject detect on animal with expandable flexible spot in the middle to begin with. Im hoping to keep iso at 800 or less this time, but thats hope. 

Whales are fairly slow moving so im going to use live view on and see how low i need to go. F8 is the goal but willing to drop. 

 

Hoping im spoiled for targets, no garuntees. 

With the WWL even f/7.1 might be enough. 

8 hours ago, fruehaufsteher2 said:

I wasn't aware that you can't shoot with the 16-35 wide open - then also my recommendation would be to use the WWL

 

You can shoot the 16-35 wide open. You may end up with, how do you say, artistic renderings. 😉

5 hours ago, HCIdiver said:

For focus i might try subject detect on animal with expandable flexible spot in the middle to begin with. Im hoping to keep iso at 800 or less this time, but thats hope. 

Whales are fairly slow moving so im going to use live view on and see how low i need to go. F8 is the goal but willing to drop. 

 

Hoping im spoiled for targets, no garuntees. 

I would hope ISO3200 would be perfectly usable on a full frame Sony, as long as it's well exposed, I've shot in rainforests using much older equipment at ISO 3200 (the old 1D MkIV ) and as long as I didn't pull the shadows up too much results were quite good.  Stretching out you shutter speed should also help, limited by subject movement rather than the diver.  This image was shot at 1/100 f7.1 ISO3200 on the 1D mKIV and is cropped a bit: 

https://www.aus-natural.com/Ecuador/Hummingbirds/slides/Gorgeted Sun Angel.html

 

Underwater the even expanse of dark water is more prone to noticable noise but also easier to process it out.  The Sony A7RV should be at least two stops better on noise.

Stick to the dome stick to the dome stick to the dome... corners are unimportant - bubbles are... Just came back from Galapagos banging my head for bringing WWL and not the dome... so much action happening during first seconds of the drop and I can imagine a lot of Orca and whales actions are going to happen from zodiac at snorkel... I found WWL-1 to be important for captures such as fish bowl, wrecks, corrals perhaps but for anything frame centric - not really.

 

Having said that this whale shark photo is at 28mm - widest - WWL view - and its eyes are - ehm - less sharp than I`d wish but it was cloudy at Darwin combined with 20m depth - not much room for better than F5.6... but I still have had more or less controlled condition if you could call paddling with your foot like mad fearing for life to keep up with the shark 🙈 and I am sensing the Orcas and whales encounters will be more dynamic. 

 

So I'd bring the dome and also 20-70 F4 for days you want to do close ups.

Edited October 31, 2024Oct 31 by RomiK

1 hour ago, RomiK said:

Stick to the dome stick to the dome stick to the dome... corners are unimportant - bubbles are...

Beautiful pic!

 

Stick to the WACP-C. No bubbles, sharp.

I too will caution against reliance on the WWL for orcas in Norway due the "bubbles" issue, needing to burp the lens. And I speak from experience. I have been to Norway for orcas many times, including last year when I shot the Sony A7RV and the WWL1. I will not do that again. Next time I will go either "dedicated water contract lens" mounted straight onto the housing, or back to old fashioned dome, or a combination of both. HCLdiver- as you know, sometimes you slip into the water and have time to organize yourself before you need to shoot. In this case, you have time to remove the WWL and reattach to make sure no air is trapped between flat port and back of WWL. But, sometimes you do not have time to do that, as you need to start swimming and or shooting immediately upon getting into the water. And, even when you have time, because of the cold water, cold air, cold fingers, thick gloves etc. the delicate operation of removing and reattaching WWL in the water is risky. I am clumsy, and dropping it (obviously, attach it to housing with a lanyard) is very real...
I have used many combinations in Norway. With Canon, 16-35 f2.8 Canon behind a 230mm dome at f2.8 and f4. Same lens behind smaller 170mm dome. Also the 16-35 f4 lens. Canon 8-15 f4 fisheye behind 140 and 170 domes. Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye behind 140 and 170 and 230 domes. Nikon D850 with fisheye, rect zoom, etc.. Nikon D500. And Sony A7RV with 28-60 and WWL1.  And I have never been fortunate to have ASA 800 light at 70 degrees north in NOvember. Most of my shooting is ASA 3200 to 6400, trying to keep 1/100 shutter speed or so. (ASA 1600 is lucky, in my experience.) So lots of wide open and near wide open.

I did not like the noise generated by the Sony A7RV at ASA 6400 and 10,000 with the 28-60/WWL when on a baitball with orcas feeding late in the day while it was snowing... Super dark conditions, yes, definitely not ideal. But that is a summary of this exercise. Visibility, light, time, action, distance, shooting angle etc are very, very rarely ideal, so you have to take what you get. The noise was more objectionable (at least to me) with the Sony setup than with either Canon 5D4 and Nikon D850. I personally feel that 60mp is just too demanding. 

Remember, the moment you zoom in from 28mm the lens stops down. So, you are rarely shooting at f4 unless you leave the lens at 28mm and shoot 130 degrees.

In summary, I would take both, and see what you think about the 28-60 and WWL and A7RV at wide open and high ISO... butd also have that 16-35 2.8 (and dome) with you... Being able to-- when necessary-- shoot at f2.8 or 4, rather than 4/4.5 or 5.6, keeps your ASA a stop or two lower for cleaner files- or gives you faster shutter shutter speed. Both can be (IMO) very important. Sometimes you have whales stretching to the corners/edges of the frame, and sometimes you are super close to the baitball and whales... but usually, most of the time you are shooting from at least a few meters away, sometimes farther.
I wish you best of luck this year. Sadly, I will not be there this year. But hoping to return to Skjervoy in 2026.
Sincerely,

Brandon

I’ll add in my experience with the WWL vs WACP-C.  
 

Short answer, image quality is really the same.  

The WACP-C is a dry port which eliminates the need to ‘burp’ the lens.  This can be critical when doing a quick entries with subjects such as whales or dolphins that require immediate photo engagement.  I personally would not use the WWL in this situation.

 

And yes, a dome with a 180 degree FoV fisheye will allow, and require, a closer interaction with a large subject.  The 130 degree FoV with the WACP is still pretty impressive.  The new FCP, despite its hefty price, would be an ideal tool as it allows zooming from 175 degrees to ~60 degrees and is a dry port. 
 

Another option is the Laowa 10mm 2.8 lens.  It will work in a 140 or 230 dome and has a 130 FoV.  This would give you the f/2.8 and other wide aperture options, if desired.
 

Fortunately quality noise reduction software adds an additional tool to compensate for higher ISOs.  
 

Have an amazing time, and share some images!

 

Edited October 31, 2024Oct 31 by ChipBPhoto

19 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I would hope ISO3200 would be perfectly usable on a full frame Sony, as long as it's well exposed, I've shot in rainforests using much older equipment at ISO 3200 (the old 1D MkIV ) and as long as I didn't pull the shadows up too much results were quite good.  Stretching out you shutter speed should also help, limited by subject movement rather than the diver.  This image was shot at 1/100 f7.1 ISO3200 on the 1D mKIV and is cropped a bit: 

https://www.aus-natural.com/Ecuador/Hummingbirds/slides/Gorgeted Sun Angel.html

 

Underwater the even expanse of dark water is more prone to noticable noise but also easier to process it out.  The Sony A7RV should be at least two stops better on noise.

 That hummingbird looks fine, fine.

1 hour ago, ChipBPhoto said:

I’ll add in my experience with the WWL vs WACP-C.  
 

Short answer, image quality is really the same.  

The WACP-C is a dry port which eliminates the need to ‘burp’ the lens.  This can be critical when doing a quick entries with subjects such as whales or dolphins that require immediate photo engagement.  I personally would not use the WWL in this situation.

 

And yes, a dome with a 180 degree FoV fisheye will allow, and require, a closer interaction with a large subject.  The 130 degree FoV with the WACP is still pretty impressive.  The new FCP, despite its hefty price, would be an ideal tool as it allows zooming from 175 degrees to ~60 degrees and is a dry port. 
 

Another option is the Laowa 10mm 2.8 lens.  It will work in a 140 or 230 dome and has a 130 FoV.  This would give you the f/2.8 and other wide aperture options, if desired.
 

Fortunately quality noise reduction software adds an additional tool to compensate for higher ISOs.  
 

Have an amazing time, and share some images!

 

 

Good to hear from Brandon and you that the WACP-C offers a real advantage over WWL-1...😊

 

About the Laowa 10mm one must add that this lens offers a very special perspective and this is certainly not for everybodies taste. It distorts heavily at the corners, the opposite way as fisheye lenses do (fisheye and WWL/WACP compress the borders). The Laowa 10mm stretches the borders out extensively - much too much for my taste. I used it together with the 140mm dome on 2 dives, but I think I will not use this lens again UW, unless (maybe) for a very special occasion...

Edited October 31, 2024Oct 31 by Architeuthis

I don't understand these complaints on WWL-1 bubbles. I use the lens for over 5 years and only experienced bubbles before the bayonet mount came out. Rolling from a boat I keep my camera in front of me so the water flows in rather smoothly and never take the lens off. Or jump, camera up in the air. No issue for me. Do  those who have isuues use the bayonet mount?

.

2 hours ago, Floris Bennema said:

I don't understand these complaints on WWL-1 bubbles. I use the lens for over 5 years and only experienced bubbles before the bayonet mount came out. Rolling from a boat I keep my camera in front of me so the water flows in rather smoothly and never take the lens off. Or jump, camera up in the air. No issue for me. Do  those who have isuues use the bayonet mount?

.

Hi @Floris Bennema,  

 

Really good question.  Great news that you haven’t had an issue.  The WWL is a terrific design.  And yes, it is mounted with the bayonet mount.  The only thing to watch is because there is a thin layer of water between the flat port and WWL, it is possible to either get tiny air bubbles or even a pice of sand when entering.  The camera’s autofocus can lock on to it, rather than the subject.  In my experience it is rare, but it has happened.  That’s why it’s strongly recommended to burp the lens once you’re stable in the water.  
 

This is normally not at all an issue.  The only snag is if that rare occurrence happens when you most need it *not* to happen.  That’s why some prefer a dry port to eliminate the possibility.

 

With that said, the WWL is a terrific option and one I enjoy using, especially for lightweight travel. 

 

17 hours ago, RomiK said:

Stick to the dome stick to the dome stick to the dome... corners are unimportant - bubbles are... Just came back from Galapagos banging my head for bringing WWL and not the dome... so much action happening during first seconds of the drop and I can imagine a lot of Orca and whales actions are going to happen from zodiac at snorkel... I found WWL-1 to be important for captures such as fish bowl, wrecks, corrals perhaps but for anything frame centric - not really.

 

Having said that this whale shark photo is at 28mm - widest - WWL view - and its eyes are - ehm - less sharp than I`d wish but it was cloudy at Darwin combined with 20m depth - not much room for better than F5.6... but I still have had more or less controlled condition if you could call paddling with your foot like mad fearing for life to keep up with the shark 🙈 and I am sensing the Orcas and whales encounters will be more dynamic. 

 

So I'd bring the dome and also 20-70 F4 for days you want to do close ups.

 

That's a nice frame. Yup, what @RomiK said

11 hours ago, Floris Bennema said:

I don't understand these complaints on WWL-1 bubbles. I use the lens for over 5 years and only experienced bubbles before the bayonet mount came out. Rolling from a boat I keep my camera in front of me so the water flows in rather smoothly and never take the lens off. Or jump, camera up in the air. No issue for me. Do  those who have isuues use the bayonet mount?

.

 

that's like impossible... for bubbles not to form no matter bayonet or not (I do have bayonet)... the bubbles will show as round spots under certain light conditions - lighter background. Attached pictures are from that one dive I didn't do it (file names show date and time of exposure). The next dive they were gone. And no it's not a dirty sensor 🙂 

 

Now I do believe that since the bubbles need some affinity to stick that by using some kind of nano coating or shampoo treatment the bubbles sticking could be minimized but I did not do any tests for that. But unless one enters the water really slow the bubbles will form, that's like given. Also in a spray bubbles from divers below... not often but it could

9 hours ago, ChipBPhoto said:

Hi @Floris Bennema,  

 

Really good question.  Great news that you haven’t had an issue.  The WWL is a terrific design.  And yes, it is mounted with the bayonet mount.  The only thing to watch is because there is a thin layer of water between the flat port and WWL, it is possible to either get tiny air bubbles or even a pice of sand when entering.  The camera’s autofocus can lock on to it, rather than the subject.  In my experience it is rare, but it has happened.  That’s why it’s strongly recommended to burp the lens once you’re stable in the water.  
 

This is normally not at all an issue.  The only snag is if that rare occurrence happens when you most need it *not* to happen.  That’s why some prefer a dry port to eliminate the possibility.

 

With that said, the WWL is a terrific option and one I enjoy using, especially for lightweight travel. 

 

@Floris Bennema - and here is a good example of what @ChipBPhoto mentioned. This happens in my experience with WWL1 rarely so far but it could and does happen.