On 3/24/2025 at 9:06 PM, shokwaav said:

 

Practically in your situation, if you're not interested in full frame housings, is to get a better lens/port combo. Even upgrading to the A7RV sensor, not many lens/port combos can resolve to the complete 61MP, especially at the corners.

 

A7C2, 28-60mm w/ WWL-1B, 1/80s, f/8, ISO 100, no strobes, centre crop, corner drop and side crop

 

 

 

The 14mm GM doesn't resolve to the complete 61MP on land, although it is closer than the Zeiss gets to 24MP.  Going from an effective 15MP image to an effective 50MP image is a huge upgrade for A2 prints.

 

A better lens/port combo is something I've considered.  I haven't looked specifically at that Tokina, but a budget zoom lens with an adapter is probably not a huge upgrade over an outdated but nice prime.  It is also a fisheye, which most people prefer but I do not.  That was one thing I was hoping for on this thread - if people post images I could see how well lenses perform without buying them and taking them to a pool or quarry.  I haven't even tried the 14mm GM on the a6300 yet, but after my last trip, I did some research and it seems to be the 'go to' wide lens for higher end Sony underwater setups.  Assuming I upgrade to full frame at some point, it makes more financial sense to do it sooner, rather than invest more in my current setup.

 

I wanted full frame since before I bought the a6300.  Everyone on the Internet advised me against full frame.  I have no idea how much harder your setup is to use than mine, or why it would be, but you are getting nice results.  If your depth-of-field is less than mine, it isn't by much.  There are other 'nice-to-have' features going to the A7RV or even A7Cr.  I could zoom electronically, and the menus and ergonomics are nicer.  Even with the housing, muscle memory for 1 camera is much easier.  My underwater setup gets larger and heavier, but if I take equipment for both above and below water, my total setup might be lighter and smaller.

 

 

6 hours ago, bvbellomo said:

wanted full frame since before I bought the a6300.  Everyone on the Internet advised me against full frame.

 

The main issue with full frame underwater, by my experience, is the problem of housing a wide-angle lens which delivers decent corners (depending on how demanding you are) and the reduced depth of field. Unless using a fisheye, big ports are needed, typically 230mm, for rectilinear lenses and even then decent edge sharpness isn't a given.  The Nauticam wet lenses might get around this but at high cost. I gave up on FF as I could see no advantage to it underwater and went with a Nikon D500 and the Tokina 10-17mm.  Topside I use an FF body for sure.

 

The Tokina 10-17 is an excellent lens on cropped frame sensors and is pretty much the go-to lens for wide-angle on DX. Yes, it is a fisheye and I read that you don't really like that. But for most/many u/w wide-angle pics, the fisheye effect is barely noticeable unless you are shooting straight lines on, eg a wreck. Sharpness and colour rendition is excellent. Topside the lens is horrible! 

We only have 1 corner, from  shokwaav, and I don't even know how much is out of focus from being in front of the focal plane vs being in a corner.  I'd consider this acceptable for almost any picture.  He did use a WWL though.

On 3/26/2025 at 11:26 PM, bvbellomo said:

 

The 14mm GM doesn't resolve to the complete 61MP on land, although it is closer than the Zeiss gets to 24MP.  Going from an effective 15MP image to an effective 50MP image is a huge upgrade for A2 prints.

 

A better lens/port combo is something I've considered.  I haven't looked specifically at that Tokina, but a budget zoom lens with an adapter is probably not a huge upgrade over an outdated but nice prime.  It is also a fisheye, which most people prefer but I do not.  That was one thing I was hoping for on this thread - if people post images I could see how well lenses perform without buying them and taking them to a pool or quarry.  I haven't even tried the 14mm GM on the a6300 yet, but after my last trip, I did some research and it seems to be the 'go to' wide lens for higher end Sony underwater setups.  Assuming I upgrade to full frame at some point, it makes more financial sense to do it sooner, rather than invest more in my current setup.

 

I wanted full frame since before I bought the a6300.  Everyone on the Internet advised me against full frame.  I have no idea how much harder your setup is to use than mine, or why it would be, but you are getting nice results.  If your depth-of-field is less than mine, it isn't by much.  There are other 'nice-to-have' features going to the A7RV or even A7Cr.  I could zoom electronically, and the menus and ergonomics are nicer.  Even with the housing, muscle memory for 1 camera is much easier.  My underwater setup gets larger and heavier, but if I take equipment for both above and below water, my total setup might be lighter and smaller.

 

 

Again in wide angle depth of field is not the issue, the corners are soft due to dome port optics often combining with corners from the lens that are a little soft even on land.  The WWL lens corner is soft due to the optics, it's not depth of field.  Less depth of field in fullframe is a concern in macro, CFWA and shooting wider open than about f8.

 

A fisheye as Tim says is generally not noticeable UW, there are exceptions which you learn to avoid.   A big advantage of fisheyes is they pretty much force you to get closer.  Water between you and your subject is a problem.  The first rule of UW photography is get close.  The second rule is if you think you are close enough, get closer. 

 

Sounds like you are determined to go full frame - if you are concerned about travel weight the A7C would be a good option and as you have seen produces nice images.  Just be sure you check the downsides of the A7C, like slower sync speeds etc.  there are posts about it on site.  Remember rectilinears are difficult to deal with, some of the Sony lenses work quite well in the 180mm dome, others not so well, once you go ultra wide beyond about 16mm perspective can start to be an issue.  this is distortion and stretching of foreground objects.  An extreme example is the 10mm laowa lens.  See this post:

 

https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1313-14mm-rectilinear-lens-guide-the-true-must-have-uw-lens-more-important-than-fe-lenses-or-wcap-wwl-fcp-etc/#findComment-9553

 

Also the Nauticam 180mm dome geometry is such that with a lens correctly positioned at the centre of curvature will vignette if it is wider than 16mm.  So the entrance pupil of a 14mm rectilinear wide needs to be placed forward of the  centre of curvature otherwise it vignettes.   Most people find 16mm easier to deal with and the eligibility of the 16-35 lenses helps.  With a fisheye you can be more compact using the 140mm dome and get better image quality. 

On 3/24/2025 at 10:31 AM, bvbellomo said:

I appreciate you posting a link to the image, but I don't have permission.  I did request it.

Sorry about that I missed this earlier - Google drive can be a pain..

 

I've changed it now here is the link:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A68BVmZkVNM9kuGnOIkqE4qp7WKQXkLa/view?usp=sharing