Last minute sanity check before i switch systems

[vkalia]

Folk, after a long time, I am thinking of changing my camera system (this will only be the 3rd model i will be using underwater in 20 years of u/w photography:  Canon 20D initially, then an Olympus OMD camera for the past 6 years).      

 

I had asked earlier about Canon vs Sony for Nauticam, and got some really useful info, which i dont plan to get everyone to repeat.    

 

In the end, have decided on a Marelux housing.   I may yet keep my Oly setup as a backup or for compact travel.

 

The plan is to get a housing for my R7.   Reasons for doing so:

- I already use the R7 for wildlife

- The Tokina 10-17 lens is my perfect u/w lens, as I enjoy wide angle photography the most.   From my tests, i should be able to live with the AF speed on it for my shooting

- i have some legacy EF lenses that I can use with this setup, atleast for now (EF 100mm macro, mainly, manually focused if need be - i have a 17-40 as well, but i dont see that as being very useful underwater)

 

I’ll be carrying over my Supe D-Pro and Inon strobes with this system (they give me all the power i need).

 

Is there any reason to consider a Sony A6700 instead of the R7?      I can use the same Tokina with it, with an adapter and buying another macro lens isnt the end of the world.      The A6700 has better video (a small benefit, given that i occasionally will be shooting content for marketing/social media for my dive center) and possibly slightly better tracking AF, but for the typical speeds at which fish move, i dont think the different is noticeable.    I can’t think of any, but just running a sanity check to make sure i am not missing anything.

 

Also, what do you guys using the R7 use as a general “swimabout lens”?   For me, that used to be a 1:1 Sigma EF 50mm macro, but that has horrendous AF with the R7, and is a no-go.    Wondering what else is there.

 

I’ve been out of the gear loop for a very long time, as you may be able to tell.

 

TIA!

 

 

Edited December 27, 2024 by vkalia

[TimG]

I love to see sanity check and new (underwater camera) system in the same sentence.  Ha!

 

How sane are we to spend so much cash and take all this sensitive gear in salt water?

 

Good luck on that final decision making, visalia. Just confirm to us all that you remain sane at the end of the process; and what pills you took. I'd like to order some. 🙈

 

 

[Giancarlo M.]

For over a year now I have been using the Canon R7 for photography, mainly Macro and Balckwater.
For Macros I recommend the Canon EF-S 60 macro in addition to the 100 you already have. For BW I recommend the Canon EF-S 35 macro
AF is very performant if you have equally fast optics. 

The Tokina 10-17 is not bad, but the Canon 8-15 is another quality and you can also consider in the future the RF-S 18-45 combination with the Nauticam WWL-1 lens.

You will have a lot of fun with the R7 underwater, I think it is currently one of the best buys as an ML for underwater photography.

 

[ChipBPhoto]

3 hours ago, Giancarlo M. said:

RF-S 18-45 combination with the Nauticam WWL-1 lens

Hi @vkalia  I’ll 2nd this option.  In my opinion, it’s the best general use lens providing a wide zoom range, very sharp images, and the ability to do almost macro-like super close focus.  
 

I’d vote to stick with the R7 you already own.  There are no real advantages the Sony a6700 would provide over it.  The Canon colors are legendary, including in video.  If your current shutter count gets too high, simply pick up either a Canon refurb R7 or a lightly used one and keep going!  I did this with my first Canon DSLR and got a very long life from the rig.
 

Enjoy!

 

Edited December 28, 2024 by ChipBPhoto

[humu9679]

@vkalia I like your thinking. I've always liked the idea of streamlining things, and if you use one system above water, and can make that work unter wasser, bravo! That said, I have twinges of regret moving away from Olympus. Great small system, and super for long telephoto wildlife. I'm with Sony now, but it's like a third spouse - fast, tight and lovely - but never like the first love that forever haunts you. Oh, Canon FD, how I miss thee.

[Chris Ross]

The 10-17's main benefit is flexibility, sure you can get a bit better image quality, but the 8-15 is a much bigger lens.   I suspect being a Canon mount lens it will work better on the EF-RF adapter compared to Sony-Canon metabones adapter.  If you go with this setup you can always upgrade to Canon 8-15 with just an extension tube and zoom gear.  It has a limit switch so that it zooms from 10-15 mm only for APS-C.

 

As for the WWL, it is certainly versatile but it's not a fisheye, you would still want a fisheye of some sort if you are a wide angle person.  You don't get the extreme central barrel distortion so much on the WWL compared to what you get with a fisheye.

 

If you were using the Sigma 50mm previously. look at the Canon EF-S 60mm lens you would need to get one second hand, but it was extremely popular and should focus OK on an RF-EF adapter.

 

When I upgraded recently I went with the OM-1 Very happy with that and I have the Canon 8-15 with Metabones adapter and it makes a very versatile wide angle solution it covers an 8mm fisheye plus the full range of a 7-14 lens so has more reach than the 10-17 does on APS-C.  From what I have seen from test sites it's very close in image quality to the APS-C sensors.

[bvanant]

Chris: What port are you using for the 8-15.

Bill

[Chris Ross]

16 minutes ago, bvanant said:

Chris: What port are you using for the 8-15.

Bill

I'm using the Nauticam N120 140mm port with the recommended 34.7mm N85-N120 and the 35mm extension ring.

[bvanant]

Thanks

Bill

[vkalia]

Thanks, folk.    Good to see that i havent missed anything.

 

@Giancarlo M. @Chris Ross thanks for the EF-S 60mm recommendation.   I will pick that up as my “swim about” lens.

 

I was originally thinking of the WWL-1 as well but have read a lot of reviews about needing to stop it down to f11 to get acceptable sharpness and stuff.      The extra flexibility will be nice but it isn’t essential - in many way, sticking to one type of photography on a dive helps me stay a bit more focused (no pun intended) with my shooting.

 

I dont think i will get the new rig before my Feb trip to Maldives but i certainly hope to have it for Tubbataha in April.    🙂

 

Cheers!

 

PS:  I will likely sell my current Oly camera, the housing, the 7-14 and the matching port.   But i may pick up a newer MFT camera and Nauticam housing, to have a second smaller/compact camera system.     But that’s down the line.

[ChipBPhoto]

9 hours ago, vkalia said:

I was originally thinking of the WWL-1 as well but have read a lot of reviews about needing to stop it down to f11 to get acceptable sharpness and stuff.

 

It would be beneficial to qualify and clairify this a bit.  Those that talk of finding f/11 the right aperture are mostly 1) using a FF (not APS-C) body and 2) referring to extreme corner edge sharpness, not general overall sharpness.  The center of the frame will be very sharp at f/8 or more open, even on a FF high MP camera.  If you are photoing an animal in blue water you can open the aperture wider.  If you are photoing a very detailed reefscape and sharp extreme edge corners are critical, then f/8-11 would be best.  Keep in mind APS-C sensors, like your R7, are generally much more forgiving than high MP FF systems.  There is no hard rule as it all depends on different subjects, objectives, and the conditions you are in.

 

Yes, the Canon EF-S 60 works very well with the RF-EF adapter.  That will give you a 96mm FF equivalent, similar to Canon 100 on a FF, which is a great macro choice.

 

Perhaps I missed something, but in the opening you mentioned you mostly like wide angle.  Specifically that the Tokina 10-17 is the perfect uw lens.  Keep in mind the Canon 60 will be a narrow solution, not wide.  

 

The important thing is that you settle on a solution that you feel best fits your needs.  Congrats and enjoy!

 

(....as background, I have used the WWL as my primary solution for over 5 years and logged 800+ dives with it.  I also use the Canon 8-15 w/ a 140 dome.  Prior to that, I used the Tokina 10-17 w/ Zen mini dome and Canon EF-S 60 on Canon APS-Cs for 11 years.)

 

 

Edited December 28, 2024 by ChipBPhoto

[Griffer]

As an R7 user ,the 10-17 is a very sharp lens i stopped using the WWL finding it a bit soft compared to the 10-17mm.

Another added bonus is the camera sync's with the flash at 1/ 400 and no black line across the bottom of your photographs try it and find out ,i had no problems with Inon z240 and Retra pro     

 

Photograph settings iso 400  f/18   1/400sec  

Enjoy playing with the R7

 

 

 

 

 

[dhaas]

Being a long time Canon APS-C shooter (before using only a 1" sensor compact G7X II the last 9 years) I'll add another option for wide angle shooting.

 

The very capable and underrated Canon RF-S 10-18mm lens isn't fast but focuses astoundingly well!  Being an RF-S lens and a rectilinear versus the long legacy Tokina 10-17mm it is a worthy option.

 

Ikelite posted a recent video and article where a capable shooter put the Canon RF-S 10-18mm and Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye through the paces side by side. 

 

https://www.ikelite.com/blogs/reviews/wide-angle-showdown-canon-rf-s-10-18mm-vs-tokina-10-17mm-underwater

 

I actually just pulled the trigger on my own Christmas present, a Canon R50 and 18-45mm RF-S "kit" lens from Canon Refurbished (same 1 year warranty as a "new" one.)    I'll test it with my buddy's Canon RF-S 10-18mm in a pool then likely buy one for my own wide angle shooting.  

 

Being more a wide angle / medium fish shooter these days means no need for a dedicated macro lens for me. It also keeps me to one dome port making travel easier.

 

Since you have a Marelux housing for your Canon R7 already I'd investigate fixed DRY wide angle lens and dome. The WWL-B / WWL-C or whatever combination can work very well also but will have some curvature.

 

My friend Phil Rudin and I had a long discussion a few months back on dry lens / dome choices versus Nauticam sharp wet lenses. There's advantages to zooming a fairly low cost kit lens (Canon, Sony or Nikon, etc.) in your housing with a full focus WET lens.  But there's also a movement I think (Phil can chime in) to fixed lens in a dome of various sizes like the popular Laowa 10mm Rectilinear lens which is an incredible value too.

 

I occasionally go back 20 years on my computer(s) and am happy with many wide angle pictures I made with fixed Canon and sigma 15mm lenses, Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye (I never owed a Full Fram dSLR) plus rectilinear Canon 10-22mm or Canon 10-18mm EF-S lenses. I even shot 90% with a smaller 6" Ikelite dome port (!!!!) 

 

In summary I'd advise you check out the low cost Canon RF-S 10-18mm lens as a wide angle shooting option 🙂

 

David Haas

 

Here's another friend's Nauticam NA-R50 for the Canon R50. It is a fixed port housing and a he bought a WWL-B lens I played with last summer. Quite capable even with my silly small strobe mounted in the cold shoe and  I'm not sure which housing I may go with yet for my own Canon R50 as the only other choice is a Seafrogs housing. But my other Canon R50 friend has used his on 3 trips so far and it's kept his Canon R50 high and dry PLUS has interchangeable dome and flat ports available.

 

 

 

 

[Pooley]

As a Sony user and Sony lover - in your shoes I'd house the R7!

 

It's a great camera, the 60mm I used to have back in my Canon days was a great lens, and my old canon 100L was superb as well. 

 

I now use a WWL-1B and that is superb and versatile - the only reason to stick with the Tokina (budget notwithstanding) is if you really need the full fisheye field of view.

 

I've shot big animals with the WWL-1B and not been disappointed at all. I even did 2 trips to Tiger beach in the same year, once with the Nikon 8-15 with a D500 (yes I've tried too many systems)   then with the A1 and WWL and I preferred the latter (although the D500 was also excellent) but if you're into reef scenes then you might want the fisheye. If its fish I'd prefer the WWL. 

 

Mike

[Architeuthis]

On 12/27/2024 at 7:41 PM, vkalia said:

Folk, after a long time, I am thinking of changing my camera system (this will only be the 3rd model i will be using underwater in 20 years of u/w photography:  Canon 20D initially, then an Olympus OMD camera for the past 6 years).      

 

I had asked earlier about Canon vs Sony for Nauticam, and got some really useful info, which i dont plan to get everyone to repeat.    

 

In the end, have decided on a Marelux housing.   I may yet keep my Oly setup as a backup or for compact travel.

 

The plan is to get a housing for my R7.   Reasons for doing so:

- I already use the R7 for wildlife

- The Tokina 10-17 lens is my perfect u/w lens, as I enjoy wide angle photography the most.   From my tests, i should be able to live with the AF speed on it for my shooting

- i have some legacy EF lenses that I can use with this setup, atleast for now (EF 100mm macro, mainly, manually focused if need be - i have a 17-40 as well, but i dont see that as being very useful underwater)

 

I’ll be carrying over my Supe D-Pro and Inon strobes with this system (they give me all the power i need).

 

Is there any reason to consider a Sony A6700 instead of the R7?      I can use the same Tokina with it, with an adapter and buying another macro lens isnt the end of the world.      The A6700 has better video (a small benefit, given that i occasionally will be shooting content for marketing/social media for my dive center) and possibly slightly better tracking AF, but for the typical speeds at which fish move, i dont think the different is noticeable.    I can’t think of any, but just running a sanity check to make sure i am not missing anything.

 

Also, what do you guys using the R7 use as a general “swimabout lens”?   For me, that used to be a 1:1 Sigma EF 50mm macro, but that has horrendous AF with the R7, and is a no-go.    Wondering what else is there.

 

I’ve been out of the gear loop for a very long time, as you may be able to tell.

 

TIA!

 

 

 

 

Regarding the Tokina 10-17mm, I think this is perfect for APS-C. The question is whether a 100mm domeport is sufficient or whether to take a 140mm domeport (which is also not monstrous)...

No question, WWL/WACP have their own place. I use WACP-C on Sony FF and can say that one can go far below f/11 and still have good IQ. Overall IQ with WACP-C/Sony 28-60mm is o.k., but not outstanding...

 

On the WA side, however, when I use WACP-C, I often have the urge to zoom out more than 130° and to take a 180° fisheye lens instead (but can not zoom in further with the FF system). So at the end, I take both WACP-C and (8-)15mm fisheye with me and use them alternately at different dives...

On the long side WWL/WACP is amazing, as one can make photos of quite small subjects, even nudies. After longer diving holidays, when I can make multiple dives with different lenses, I find out that the keepers are the ones made with a true macro lens, they are just better. So at the end I keep only WACP-C photos of smaller subjects for documentation, which I was not able to photograph with the macro rig...

In case a comparable zoom fisheye lens (e.g. 15-35mm, f/4) with high optical quality would exist for FF, I would not hesitate to exchange the big, heavy and expensive WACP-C against the fisheye lens with a 140mm domeport. As said above, I easily could waive the ability to shoot small subjects with the WA setup (I am also not a big fan of rectilinear WA lenses for UW use). Of course, this may be a very personal opinion...

 

I believe the Canon R7 camera is quite the optimum for UW use of APS-C, since you can use the huge repertoire of Canon EF lenses, in case comparable RF lenses do not yet exist, especially macro. Macro lenses are the weak point of Sony cameras, both APS-C and FF...

 

Wolfgang

Edited December 29, 2024 by Architeuthis

[TimG]

5 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

Regarding the Tokina 10-17mm, I think this is perfect for APS-C. The question is whether a 100mm domeport is sufficient or whether to take a 140mm domeport (which is also not monstrous)...

 

I use the Tokina all the time for WA. Although I have both a 100 and a 140 port, unless I am setting out to do under/overs, I always use the 100. I can't see an advantage in the 140 for standard WA shots with the Tokina.

 

5 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I find out that the keepers are the ones made with a true macro lens, they are just better

 

Totally agree with this. I think going with that one-lens-which-can do-anything is not a recipe for success. The problem is not the lens but the way having that range of options impacts on the creative thinking process. Pick a lens and go out thinking about what you can create with that. Photography is much about visualisation of an end result and then going out to achieve it. 

[vkalia]

On 12/28/2024 at 7:30 PM, ChipBPhoto said:

Perhaps I missed something, but in the opening you mentioned you mostly like wide angle.  Specifically that the Tokina 10-17 is the perfect uw lens.  Keep in mind the Canon 60 will be a narrow solution, not wide.  

 

 

Thanks for the additional info on the WWL-1.

 

To answer your question above - yes, while the fisheye is the primary lens I use, there are times/sites where I want a "generalist" lens.    For me, a 50mm lens has worked really well for this in the past.     This would be the secondary lens (well, this and a 100mm macro for specialized macro-focused dives).

[vkalia]

Also, a question about using the 8-15 on an APS-C body:   does the image circle cover the entire sensor at 8mm or do you have to zoom in a bit to 9mm?       And any idea what is the approx diagonal angle of view at 15mm, on a crop sensor?

[vkalia]

On 12/28/2024 at 10:29 PM, dhaas said:

Being a long time Canon APS-C shooter (before using only a 1" sensor compact G7X II the last 9 years) I'll add another option for wide angle shooting.

 

The very capable and underrated Canon RF-S 10-18mm lens isn't fast but focuses astoundingly well!  Being an RF-S lens and a rectilinear versus the long legacy Tokina 10-17mm it is a worthy option.

 

Ikelite posted a recent video and article where a capable shooter put the Canon RF-S 10-18mm and Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye through the paces side by side. 

 

https://www.ikelite.com/blogs/reviews/wide-angle-showdown-canon-rf-s-10-18mm-vs-tokina-10-17mm-underwater

 

 

Ha, funnily, I read this literally JUST before opening up Waterpixels just now.      However, the 10-18mm only has a 105 degree diagonal FOV - I prefer wider.  A LOT wider.     

 

That said, I do wonder if I should consider something other than a 50mm as my general/do-it-all lens.   Perhaps for this, I should consider a WWL or some other wide angle converter.    But that's something to think about for later.    Worst case, I can just my Olympus/Nauticam setup for general shooting.

Edited December 29, 2024 by vkalia

[Chris Ross]

5 hours ago, vkalia said:

Also, a question about using the 8-15 on an APS-C body:   does the image circle cover the entire sensor at 8mm or do you have to zoom in a bit to 9mm?       And any idea what is the approx diagonal angle of view at 15mm, on a crop sensor?

You get vignetting at 8mm The 8-15 has a limit switch for APS_C so that it restricts you to 10-15mm. That way you don't end up with vignetting in the corners if you zoom past 10mm.  It will have about the same angle of view as the Tokina 10-17 - something around 175° on the diagonal.  For fields as you zoom, this table has calculated horizontal, vertical and diagonal fields of view along with the approximate equivalent rectilnear lens based upon the horizontal field.

 

				Horizontal
APS-C	horizontal	vertical	diagonal	rectilinear Equiv
Fisheye – 10mm	144	92	180
Fisheye – 11 mm	129	84	160
Fisheye – 12mm	117	76	144	11mm
Fisheye 13mm	107	70	132	13.5mm
Fisheye – 15mm	92	61	112	17.5mm
Fisheye – 17mm	81	53	98	22mm

[vkalia]

Thanks @Chris Ross - much appreciated.

[BrightSea]

On 12/27/2024 at 6:03 PM, ChipBPhoto said:

Hi @vkalia  I’ll 2nd this option.  In my opinion, it’s the best general use lens providing a wide zoom range, very sharp images, and the ability to do almost macro-like super close focus.  
 

I’d vote to stick with the R7 you already own.  There are no real advantages the Sony a6700 would provide over it.  The Canon colors are legendary, including in video.  If your current shutter count gets too high, simply pick up either a Canon refurb R7 or a lightly used one and keep going!  I did this with my first Canon DSLR and got a very long life from the rig.
 

Enjoy!

 

I wish I had moved from my long loved Canon 7D to the R7, I opted for the R5 and very much miss my APSC : - (