Aloha everyone,

I am an underwater photographer based in Oahu, Hawaii. I work as a professional shark diver and photographer currently. I shoot mostly blue water with the primary subjects being sharks and people. I also run trips for Orcas and Humpback Whales so looking for opinions on if I should switch systems.

I currently use the R5mii with the 14-35 f4. I feel low it’s low light capabilities and metering give me issues in blue water so running auto iso is out of the picture as it wants to shoot extremely high. I have the wacp-2 and with the 14-35 it has vignetting in the corner so kind of defeats the purpose of using that lens. I do have the 15-35 as well. I am looking at buying the wacp-c and the 20-50 F4 lens that just released as that’s a way smaller setup to shoot and handle sharks with while giving me close focus and ultra wide fov.

I got an offer for a good price on a Sony a1 setup and they have the 20-50 2.8 lens which seems interesting to me. Would be much smaller and that extra low light capabilities for Norway with orcas is huge.

Has anyone used any of these cameras and the wacp-c setups that could give some insight to steer me one way. Feel free to msg me here, respond to this posts or IG@whotippedmycow

Thank you for your time and happy 4th!

A few considerations on upgrading as you know the widest lens that doesn't vignette for the WACP series is 28mm so both of the 20-50 lenses would need to zoom into 28mm in operation and you can't just get there by turning the dial out you have to look to see you have got to 28mm. I could see this being an issue when trying to work quickly.

Also neither 20-50 lens is on the WACP-C port charts as yet and particularly fast lenses might not work with the WACP-C, though the Sony 24-50 f2.8 is on the WACP-C port chart, but there appears to be a typo in the port chart and the line advising the zoom range is 28-50 seems to be missing. I believe they have a limit on entrance pupil size which impacts what lenses work in that system. Assuming you are looking at both lenses behind the WACP-C

The WACP-1/1B includes the Sony 20-70 f4 lens, but most of the lenses for that optic are also kit lenses.

What exactly is the concern with with the R-5II? I would have thought the sensor capabilities of the A1 and R5 II to be very close, Is there no option to cap maximum ISO when using auto ISO? It might be worth asking the question how Canon shooters handle blue water metering as well, could be a better option than a system switch?

The low light and metering are 2 concerns with the R5mii as well as dynamic range and hard to focus when scene is not contrasty enough. Norway with orcas is extreme lowlight conditions and I’ve seen good stuff from Sonys using wacp-c with 28mm lens so in theory the 20-50 would be ideal. With that said I know the wacp-c/1 work with 28mm so you would have to start there. For canon they may a zoom limiter for the 24-50 kit lens which blocks the 24-27 range. Also on R5mii you have a display at the bottom right corner which helps in this rare case if you do not have the limiter but it’s still annoying in a quick shot scenario.

I have the wacp2 with canon rf14-35 and it sucks because vignetting and it’s honestly worked better behind a 230mm dome for me.

The canon 20-50 f4 though seems like an interesting option but I still worry about the low light, metering and focusing issues when little contrast.

2 hours ago, WhoTippedMyCoW said:

The low light and metering are 2 concerns with the R5mii as well as dynamic range and hard to focus when scene is not contrasty enough. Norway with orcas is extreme lowlight conditions and I’ve seen good stuff from Sonys using wacp-c with 28mm lens so in theory the 20-50 would be ideal. With that said I know the wacp-c/1 work with 28mm so you would have to start there. For canon they may a zoom limiter for the 24-50 kit lens which blocks the 24-27 range. Also on R5mii you have a display at the bottom right corner which helps in this rare case if you do not have the limiter but it’s still annoying in a quick shot scenario.

I have the wacp2 with canon rf14-35 and it sucks because vignetting and it’s honestly worked better behind a 230mm dome for me.

The canon 20-50 f4 though seems like an interesting option but I still worry about the low light, metering and focusing issues when little contrast.

I don't know how much stock you place in DXO data, but here is a comparison of the R5 (mk I), R8 and Sony A1, they all seem pretty close in performance to me:

DXOMARK

Sony A1 vs Canon EOS R8 vs Canon EOS R5 | DXOMARK

The Canon 24-50 kit lens is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and there have been several posts about its relatively poor performance. As far as AF performance goes the specs say the AF sensitivity on the R5 II is -6 - 21EV while the min for the A1 is -4EV, seems close but the devil is in the details of how they measure that. Probably best to see if you find some land based reviews to see what that means in real life as there are probably not many who have shot both underwater and with blue water pelagic experience.

You could also ask a question on the forum about settings people use for sharks/whales in lower light on your R5 II to compare with what you do. Looking at things like AF mode - single vs continuous, various AF settings and which AF points you use etc.

Also faster lenses should generally provide more light for AF assuming that AF occurs with the lens wide open. I see that the EF 28mm f1.8 and f2.8 primes are listed as working with the WACP 1B. Again on these optics there is an entrance pupil limitation, favouring slower lenses and my understanding is that this is why the range of lenses listed in the port charts is limited.

6 hours ago, WhoTippedMyCoW said:

I got an offer for a good price on a Sony a1 setup and they have the 20-50 2.8

So you insist on shooting f2.8 for low light underwater and that’s you goal ?

Congratulations… expect dismal performance of your high $$$ gear!

Cranking up the ISO a few stops will give you better results then spending tons of $$$ on one more camera or lens.

If you are desperately in search for an F2.8 candidate try to get that Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM running behind your WACP and maybe live with a slightly limited zoom range on the Tele end.

Also have a look if you can fit the RF28MM pancake prime behind your WACP.

14 hours ago, WhoTippedMyCoW said:

Aloha everyone,

I am an underwater photographer based in Oahu, Hawaii. I work as a professional shark diver and photographer currently. I shoot mostly blue water with the primary subjects being sharks and people. I also run trips for Orcas and Humpback Whales so looking for opinions on if I should switch systems.

I currently use the R5mii with the 14-35 f4. I feel low it’s low light capabilities and metering give me issues in blue water so running auto iso is out of the picture as it wants to shoot extremely high. I have the wacp-2 and with the 14-35 it has vignetting in the corner so kind of defeats the purpose of using that lens. I do have the 15-35 as well. I am looking at buying the wacp-c and the 20-50 F4 lens that just released as that’s a way smaller setup to shoot and handle sharks with while giving me close focus and ultra wide fov.

I got an offer for a good price on a Sony a1 setup and they have the 20-50 2.8 lens which seems interesting to me. Would be much smaller and that extra low light capabilities for Norway with orcas is huge.

Has anyone used any of these cameras and the wacp-c setups that could give some insight to steer me one way. Feel free to msg me here, respond to this posts or IG@whotippedmycow

Thank you for your time and happy 4th!

I am not familiar with the Canon lens choices, but very likely this choice is similar to the Sony system (it is a problem for UW, that the systems lack really very suitable lenses, e.g 15-35mm f/4 fisheye; but for these perspectives the wet lenses do exist)...

I am sure a switch from Canon R5II to Sony A1 will not make a recognizable difference, but a careful evaluation of WA combinations available for Canon will certainly improve the photographic potential (WACP-2 with 14-35mm lens is (probably) optically very good, but extremely bulky and heavy). For baited/feeded sharks a fisheye lens with (or without) Teleconverter may be also very good but much more handsome (for me, personally, WACP-C with 130° diagonal maximum would not enough for such cases)..

Edited Sunday at 04:25 PM1 day by Architeuthis

13 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I am not familiar with the Canon lens choices, but very likely this choice is similar to the Sony system (it is a problem for UW, that the systems lack really very suitable lenses, e.g 15-35mm f/4 fisheye; but for these perspectives the wet lenses do exist)...

I am sure a switch from Canon R5II to Sony A1 will not make a recognizable difference, but a careful evaluation of WA combinations available for Canon will certainly improve the photographic potential (WACP-2 with 14-35mm lens is (probably) optically very good, but extremely bulky and heavy). For baited/feeded sharks a fisheye lens with (or without) Teleconverter may be also very good but much more handsome (for me, personally, WACP-C with 130° diagonal maximum would not enough for such cases)..

My WACP-2 with my 14-35 F4 vignettes like crazy at 14 so it kind of defeats the purpose of it. It's also alot for me to handle when I have to move Tiger Sharks around on tours. I can do it but just slows me down so I am leaning towards a WACP-1. Canon just released the 20-50 F4 and its on the port chart just don't know anyone who has tested behind a WACP-C yet.

The sony is smaller and has the 20-50 2.8 option which to me is a nice addition as I think it could help me in Norway when shooting orcas in extreme low light.

With that being said I won't use 2.8 often if ever but also Sony has superior dynamic range unless someone can help me with my R5mii to figure out how to handle the metering and noise issues I have.

1 hour ago, WhoTippedMyCoW said:

My WACP-2 with my 14-35 F4 vignettes like crazy at 14 so it kind of defeats the purpose of it. It's also alot for me to handle when I have to move Tiger Sharks around on tours. I can do it but just slows me down so I am leaning towards a WACP-1. Canon just released the 20-50 F4 and its on the port chart just don't know anyone who has tested behind a WACP-C yet.

The sony is smaller and has the 20-50 2.8 option which to me is a nice addition as I think it could help me in Norway when shooting orcas in extreme low light.

With that being said I won't use 2.8 often if ever but also Sony has superior dynamic range unless someone can help me with my R5mii to figure out how to handle the metering and noise issues I have.

The camera system and the optics are two different items and should be treated separately...

#1.: Regarding the camera, Canon R5II and Sony A1 have very similar DR, at base ISO as well as at elevated ISO, e.g. see here: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-1M2

There is no improvement to expect in practice, when switching from Canon to Sony, but noise can be treated very effectively today with AI routines, e.g. in LRc.

The Sony A1, as you say, is a little bit smaller compared to Canon, also with housing (the smallest FF camera with housing is the Sony A7cII (or A7CR); this may be the way to go when one intends to reduce size/weight of camera&housing).

When it comes to metering and AF, I expect similar results with both cameras when the complicated menues are set to the right parameters (I only can say from own experience for Sony A7R5, which I have; metering and AF are excellent, but the menue is complicated and confusing. I needed some trial and error to get the rig configured to my needs. I also assigned several custom buttons to switch between different AF modes/areas UW (I think there is still room for improvement if I just understood the manual/menue better))

#2.: Regarding the optics, the WACP-2 is optically the best, but a monster (when zooming a little out, vignetting should not be a problem any more, provided the rigth extension is used). I only saw it once in my life and immediately knew WACP-2 is not for me. The difference in camera/housing is almost neglectible compared to the difference in size/weigth of the optics, when WACP-2 and e.g. a 140mm domeport with fisheye lens are compared...

I have WACP-C with the Sony 28-60mm (many use this combo, are highly satisfied and there are similar configurations available for Canon), which is substantially smaller and lighter compared to WACP-2 (note that also the WACP-1 is clearly bigger/heavier compared to WACP-C). I do not think that for UW use f/2.8 is a big advantage compared to f/4-5.6 as one (normally) does not go below f/7 (at most f/5.6)to have sharp images also away from the center...

I, personally, prefer the Canon 8-15mm, as it provides 180° diagonal compared to 130°, wich is the maximum for the WACP-C combo...

The Canon 8-15mm fisheye in 140mm domeport provides not only 180° diagonal, but is also small and clever. When used with TCs, it can be used at more narrow angles of view. I only can say what combinations of 8-15mm/TCs work for Sony, but here are people posting here who use the Canon fisheye with TCs (see e.g. the post of user "WASO" in this tread here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3095-nauticamcanon-wa-questions/page/3/#comment-26191)

Alternatively one could acquire Nauticams FCP, but I doubt this solutions does any better compared to fisheye lens with TC...

All the best, Wolfgang

Edited yesterday at 07:54 AM1 day by Architeuthis

7 hours ago, Adventurer said:

So you insist on shooting f2.8 for low light underwater and that’s you goal ?

Congratulations… expect dismal performance of your high $$$ gear!

Cranking up the ISO a few stops will give you better results then spending tons of $$$ on one more camera or lens.

If you are desperately in search for an F2.8 candidate try to get that Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM running behind your WACP and maybe live with a slightly limited zoom range on the Tele end.

I have used the 28 f2 on my Sony a7iii before I knew what I was really doing and got fantastic results. Shooting in Norway with orcas you need better dynamic range. I’m telling you from 3 years of doing it that my canon has struggled to find autofocus with 15-35 2.8 RF lens on my canon R5 and R5mii. ISO performance on the R5mii is not its bright spot too imo. Also using old slow lenses on my wacp doesn’t give me the quality I should be getting on my $$$$ expensive setups. With that said I believe Sony has superior dynamic range and from what I’ve seen people get in Norway with their Sony setups is superior to what I can get. Maybe I’m doing something wrong but my R5mii struggled to focus in low light/low contrast scenarios. Even in Hawaii in blue water my auto iso setup wants to go straight to the top of the range while my friends Sony will stay low. Am I metering wrong? Maybe but idk how to fix that.

I’d Ike to think my R5mii is better in every way then the Sony a1 but I’m still struggling to get the best I can out of it and I’m frustrated which is why I’m looking at the Sony.

7 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I don't know how much stock you place in DXO data, but here is a comparison of the R5 (mk I), R8 and Sony A1, they all seem pretty close in performance to me:

DXOMARK

Sony A1 vs Canon EOS R8 vs Canon EOS R5 | DXOMARK

The Canon 24-50 kit lens is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and there have been several posts about its relatively poor performance. As far as AF performance goes the specs say the AF sensitivity on the R5 II is -6 - 21EV while the min for the A1 is -4EV, seems close but the devil is in the details of how they measure that. Probably best to see if you find some land based reviews to see what that means in real life as there are probably not many who have shot both underwater and with blue water pelagic experience.

You could also ask a question on the forum about settings people use for sharks/whales in lower light on your R5 II to compare with what you do. Looking at things like AF mode - single vs continuous, various AF settings and which AF points you use etc.

Also faster lenses should generally provide more light for AF assuming that AF occurs with the lens wide open. I see that the EF 28mm f1.8 and f2.8 primes are listed as working with the WACP 1B. Again on these optics there is an entrance pupil limitation, favouring slower lenses and my understanding is that this is why the range of lenses listed in the port charts is limited.

Thank you for the write up. I currently have the wacp1 and 2 and I don’t necessarily like the 28-70 kit lens. It seems to be way too slow. I also don’t think the 24-50 is okay but the new 20-50 seems interesting to me. I believe the focuses internally, which means it should work really well at all ranges behind the WACP and would give me a smaller setup when I’m dealing with sharks so that’s a bonus. I just wish someone tested it prior to me spending the money lol.

I know I can raise ISO but the Sony handles noise way better so I’m still leaning towards that and the size becomes way smaller as well. The canon mount is definitely better and video specs superior so I’d like to stay just sucks spending a ton of money on a trip to see Orcas and being very limited to what I can capture compared to friends setups.

7 hours ago, Adventurer said:

Also have a look if you can fit the RF28MM pancake prime behind your WACP.

21 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

The camera system and the optics are two different items and should be treated separately...

#1.: Regarding the camera, Canon R5II and Sony A1 have very similar DR, at base ISO as well as at elevated ISO, e.g. see here: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-1M2

There is no improvement to expect in practice, when switching from Canon to Sony, but noise can be treated very effectively today with AI routines, e.g. in LRc.

The Sony A1, as you say, is a little bit smaller compared to Canon, also with housing (the smallest FF camera with housing is the Sony A7cII (or A7CR); this may be the way to go when one intends to reduce size/weight of camera&housing).

When it comes to metering and AF, I expect similar results with both cameras when the complicated menues are set to the right parameters (I only can say from own experience for Sony A7R5, which I have; metering and AF are excellent, but the menue is complicated and confusing. I needed some trial and error to get the rig configured to my needs. I also assigned several custom buttons to switch between different AF modes/areas UW (I think there is still room for improvement if I just understood the manual/menue better))

#2.: Regarding the optics, the WACP-2 is optically the best, but a monster (when zooming a little out, vignetting should not be a problem any more, provided the rigth extension is used). I only saw it once in my life and immediately knew WACP-2 is not for me. The difference in camera/housing is almost neglectible compared to the difference in size/weigth of the optics, when WACP-2 and e.g. a 140mm domeport with fisheye lens are compared...

I have WACP-C with the Sony 28-60mm (many use this combo, are highly satisfied and there are similar configurations available for Canon), which is substantially smaller and lighter compared to WACP-2 (note that also the WACP-1 is clearly bigger/heavier compared to WACP-C). I do not think that for UW use f/2.8 is a big advantage compared to f/4-5.6 as one (normally) does not go below f/7 (at most f/5.6)to have sharp images also away from the center...

I, personally, prefer the Canon 8-15mm, as it provides 180° diagonal compared to 130°, wich is the maximum for the WACP-C combo...

The Canon 8-15mm fisheye in 140mm domeport provides not only 180° diagonal, but is also small and clever. When used with TCs, it can be used at more narrow angles of view. I only can say what combinations of 8-15mm/TCs work for Sony, but here are people posting here who use the Canon fisheye with TCs (see e.g. the post of user "WASO" in this tread here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3095-nauticamcanon-wa-questions/page/3/#comment-26191)

Alternatively one could acquire Nauticams FCP, but I doubt this solutions does any better compared to fisheye lens with TC...

All the best, Wolfgang

Thank you for all this info. I got the wacp-2 and agree the size is crazy and I freedive 99% of the time for my photography.

I still think Sony has superior dynamic range and low light capabilities but I probably have something wrong in my menu/settings. I use BBF

But I feel I miss focus a lot or it struggles to pick up a subject. Maybe I’ll make another post and see if I can find a canon expert who can help me make sure I’m dialed in.

When DR is a foremost criterion for selection of a camera, the Sony A7V and Sony A7RVI offer indeed improved DR and are ahead of other camera models (they use a new technology of A/D conversion of the photoelectrons at the sensor):

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-1M2,Sony%20ILCE-7M5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM6

At the linked camera review site you can have a look by yourself, how the increased DR translates to better shadow improvement ("exposure latitude"; a photo of a test chard is made and in postprocessing the exposure is increased by 6 EVs to make the noise in the shadows visible):

www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=sony_a7rvi&attr144_1=sony_a7v&attr144_2=canon_eosr5ii&attr144_3=sony_a1ii&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&attr177_2=efc&attr177_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1011&x=0.14411875835858645&y=0.550063089572198

=> It is, however, important to add that this increased DR of approx. 1 f-stop compared to older camera models (e.g. Canon R5II or Sony A1II) applies only to low ISO values (approx. in the ISO 100-400 range) and at ISO values above 600 the improvement is gone...

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by Architeuthis