All Activity

I noticed that the size of the 7-14 is more or less the same as the 10-20... Good point

The 7-14 Fisheye is unfortunately NOT compatible with RF Extenders: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-7-14mm-F2-8-3-5-L-Fisheye-STM-Lens.aspx

As Canon R5 user i'm really happy that Canon bring this lens at the market. I'm waiting the first test on land... and after underwater. As already say I'm using the rectilinear 10-20 mm... I never used fisheyes.. You all are so happy with this fisheyes that I need to test it... I want to show the difference it makes. Not sure i'll be happy for some dive where I take such pictures,where a fisheyes will deform the line

It seems to be a great lens, but it will remain a "nice" product, useful only for Canon mirrorless users... It is really a pity that it comes in the mirrorless RF mount. The old Canon EF mount was, besides beeing the mount for Canon, some kind of "universal" mount, easily adaptaple to RF, Sony FE, MFT and even to Nikon Z. One could see a lot of EF lenses on camera bodies other than Canon... (beeing a user of Canon 8-15mm f/4 EF on Sony, I have no urge to switch, at present, to another lens with similar properties, even if it would be compatible (RF is certainly not))...

As a follow-up, X-Ray mag has just published a new feature on Mikomoto (and a bit of Osezaki): https://xray-mag.com/content/japan-honshu-mikomoto

Just to add a bit more context, I’m attaching a few older images I took with the 28mm + fisheye converter behind an 8" dome, in case it’s useful as a real-world reference for what this combo can produce.

It does help indeed, thanks! I’m considering fisheye solutions for a full frame system (A7C II) - ideally that won’t break the bank… ha ! funny, I know. I’ve seen this combo (28mm + converter) mentioned several times, but it’s good to know that it’s not as good as a wet lens. Moving into FF for IQ, and would be a pity to cancel that improvement with bad optics.

Hi, I used the 28mm + fisheye converter only for a very short time, then moved to a WWL, later to the Canon 8–15, and finally to the Nikonos RS 13. From my personal experience, in terms of pure image quality I would rank them in the same order. Regarding the 28mm + fisheye converter specifically: it is reasonably sharp in the center and gives a fairly wide field of view. I don’t remember the exact field of view behind an 8" dome, but it felt “wide enough”. Hope this helps.

Lovely lens!! I have the former and now am questioned to move to that. 7mm focal length indeed might become tricky but let see who will react faster for that (i can guess Nauticam)! But Olympus had a similar lens (Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:2.8 PRO) - yet not fisheye and solutions where around from Nauticam.

Jens is right. If you're shooting RAW then White Balance is simply a metadata value that doesn't have any impact on the image except in its preview on the camera LCD screen. Once you have the RAW files in the computer (Lightroom etc) the image will display with the original WB value but it's not baked in and you can freely change it. A common and useful technique for underwater shooters is to set the WB to the same temp as your strobes - this at least gives you a consistent preview and baseline for comparison and review, but then you're free to warm up or cool down shots as you please. But if you are shooting JPEG, perhaps because you want to use the photos straight from the camera without processing, then you're trading off quality and WB flexibility for speed and efficiency. If you're shooting in shallow water there can be lots of variable sunlight and the colour temp can change quite drastically from shot to shot. So it's not a case of how 'well' any camera does WB. They all do it the same. It's a matter of either either letting the auto-WB do its thing (OM auto WB is excellent but in variable shallow water all cameras will struggle). Or manually changing the WB depending on the colour of the water (Blue or green) and whether you are facing upwards to the surface or downwards away from the sunlight. In all practical terms, it's very clumsy to be changing WB for each shot. So best to find a consistent fixed WB temp that matches the water and type of shooting. or else go Auto and hope for the best. Most of the time it will work. JPEG will allow for some degree of colour temp adjustment later but this does bring us back to RAW and why really, RAW is the only way to go. HTH

oK - specs are out… 15 cm MFD look promising. Canon RF sensor to flange = 20 mm Canon RF 7-14 lens length = 109 mm I = 20 mm + 109 mm = 129 mm MFD = 150 mm MFD - I = 21 mm Focuses 2,1 cm in front of front glas. But if the 190 degree FOV at 7mm focal length is not a typo it will create lots of headaches with port positioning.

Perhaps you could explain why this is important in your case? I take photos with the OM-1 and OM-1 II, but white balance is not important to me as I only shoot in RAW.

10 & 2 works well and is easy to move the lenses.

Great report Dave! Thanks for sharing!

How do you orient the dual flip? I have mine at 10 and 2-o'clock, but I'm wondering if 4 and 8 might be better?

It's probably a good idea to look at what sort of pictures you want to take and what your budget is. Potentially looking at a more modern Canon to use some of your existing lenses and ports?

Does anyone know how well the OM-1 mark II does white balance in shallow water. Looks like it has a pre set white balance for it ?

I've been to both and you can't go too wrong with either. I have plans to go back and I will head to Buceo Anilao. The staff were outstanding.

I'm at the stage where I'm trying to figure out what to do with my fabulous Canon 7dmkii/Nauticam system. I'm considering selling it but not sure if there's any market/value at all? I am not on FB so don't have access to things like the marketplace or specific uw photography sales pages. Both camera and housing are due for a service - a nice chunk of change. Maybe better to just forget it altogether and continue on my journey towards a more updated system? I'm currently using the baby Oly TG7 setup and enjoy it 90% of the time, but do find myself frustrated now and again so I need to bite the bullet and get my existing gear sorted (about a two month wait, I'm told) or buy something new (probably a longer wait because I still can't make a decision and obviously way more upfront expense). What's everyone's thoughts? Photo just because it's more interesting :)

No, hugely better with the Sony 50 macro. With a flat port you can barely get a 12mm D circle in the middle of the frame sharp. With a dome (in my case the 140 fisheye) everything that's in focus is sharp, across the entire frame, as Mustard and co say.. That big better appeals to me, but I understand many wouldn't care / feel the need to add attachments. Just wish I could get it happening (with decent AF) for the 100 macro. At the moment, the 'dog' of a 50 focuses more reliably than the 100 behind a dome, in my tests! Something to remember when calculating EP position for dome alignment: do it at (say) 30-40cm focused distance, since that is a reasonable compromise for where the virtual image will be. No point using infinity...

One interesting thing to note when using domes for macros is that the plane of focus changes from being straight with a flat port to curving a little bit away from the camera with a dome port.

Planning a trip to Anilao and looking at Buceo Anilao or Crystal Blue. Never been to either place and looking for input, especially but not only anyone who can compare the two. Thank you

Ah, yeah that site doesn't have most of the lenses I'm working with. It does have the Sony 90mm, but I'm not sure I trust what it says since it differs from what I measured. I also don't think it gives any info on how the entrance pupil changes with focus (unless I'm missing something).

This doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Most dome sections are much larger than they need to be to cover the narrow FOV of macro lenses. For example, today I am testing a small (~50mm) section I cut from a 150mm diameter acrylic dome (shown in red) with the Tamron 90mm. So far, the results are looking very good (on par with the Zen dome shown in black):

Well, in fact I already use the Kenko 2.0x teleconverter many times, combined with a dome flatter than usual. It's a quiet good combination to take "macro-wide angle" shots.