All Activity

I have the same monitor and I use the cold shoe on top of my housing with a long clamp. On my previous jousing I had a 10Bar crossbar but I had to change the 1" ball mounts on the housing.

I just use a single standard clamp to the third ball mount on my housing, but it looks as if yours has two "inner" ball mounts. I have a braided handle that attaches via shackles to the holes on the back of that upper plate.

Hi Rustico, Welcome aboard!

M43 user here. I used the 7-14 mm and 6" dome or 14-42 mm and WWL-1. Regardless of the lens/dome combination used the most important thing is a neutral buoyancy camera setup. Of course, a large dome will create more drag. It depends on the scooter too... 😉

Aloha and welcome @DrewK !

Is there any sort of mounting point on the back of the monitor? Or I guess to short float arms to a triple clamp could work. Just trying to think of ways which then don't need even more flotation to compensate for.

Update I can confirm that Extension #48462 (39.5mm) is the correct extension for the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 using Port #18414 on an Aquatica AZ8. The sharpness was as expected at the edges at f4 and f8 with no vignette.

I certainly could look at attaching. A rigid float arm to the centre of the rig and then the monitor above, if that's what you mean. The monitor is negative 260g, which I can compensate for quite easily. I think I need to play about with the few ideas, but that may very well work. Thanks

This is a situation where some sort of mount fabricated to fit on a rigid float arm might be an option, especially since the monitor is quite negative. How much freedom of movement do you need?

The initial statement “You cannot improve a lens’s in-air optical performance underwater.” is clear and true, but exceptions exist... (The Tokina 10-17mm fisheye lens behind a domeport, e.g., performs clearly better UW compared to the performance at the surface (especially when used together with a 0.71x speedbooster)...) Are optical jewels automatically performing better compared to, average quality, kit lenses for UW WA? Certainly not. Too many factors that ruin IQ UW ... An UW WA setup that would provide the idential optical quality, as an average kit lens provides on the surface, would be a true gem and a favorite for all of us... Already in the center the sharpness is diminished, just by the water (absorption and diffraction of the light), even when it is clear, not to speak about bad vis, to an extend that goes below the standards we are used on the surface. Not to speak about the corners that never can be sharp when using a domeport (or water contact optics) and the unpleasant distortions that (mostly rectilinear) lenses produce away from the center... The question is rather: what system, in combination, gives the least impaired results (lens/domeport combination, fisheye lens (with and w/o TCs), water contact optics/lens combination)? The lens itself is certainly a contributing factor, but it must not be overrated: A high quality WA lens that does not perform well behind a domeport can not reach the IQ of a kit lens in compination with water contact optics (e.g. because of a field curvature that is opposite to the curvature of the virtual image produced by the domeport; entrance pupil that makes correct positioning difficult). Another example is a 180° diagonal fisheye lens that, just because of the shortest object distance and hence minimal IQ detoriation produced by the water, gives way sharper images compared to a lens with considerably larger object distance... Only with lenses that work very well together with a domeport and in very clear waters one may be able to see differences that come from the lens itself. In my personal experience, the Sony 20-70mm and Tokina 17-28mm (Sony FF) and the Zuiko 12-40mm pro (Oly MTF), all behind Zen DP170, perform very well UW and give (subjectively) sharper images compared to Sony 28-60mm/WACP-C (FF), but only when conditions are at their best. The pure Canon 8-15mm fisheye comes close in sharpness to the Sony 20-70mm/DP170, but when used with TCs (Kenko 1.4x Teleplus HD pro DGX or Sony 2x TC) IQ is comparable to 28-60mm/WACP-C... As far as I know, none of these lenses provides the highest optical standards on the surface, but the Sony 28-60mm kit lens is certainly the least performing lens of them and a league below the others (Chip reports, however, that 28-60mm gives better results with WACP-1, hence 28-60mm/WACP-C is not the last rung in the ladder)... Wolfgang

Hi All, I have recently bought a Weefine WED 5 Pro from Alex Tattershall - UWvisions (excellent service) and I'm looking for ideas of the best way to attach it to my housing. I have a cross bar, which I bought ages ago but it's too big and doesn't fit. Can anyone recommend a cross bar that would allow me to fit it to the housing but still use the nauticam fabric handle? The photo attached is just for illitration and I won't be attaching like this in future. I have thought either a cross bar or 2 small arms with a triple ball mount. Thanks John

When the discussion comes to Kenko TCs for Canon EF mount, one must say that there exist TWO versions of both 1.4x and 2x TC: the "Teleplus HD DGX" and the "Teleplus HD pro DGX"... I have the Kenko Teleplus HD DGX 2x TC version and used it few times with the Canon 8-15mm on Sony A7R5. Unfortunately, the IQ suffers a lot with this TC (too much for my taste). In comparison the Kenko Teleplus HD pro DGX 1.4x TC works very well with this fisheye lens (for me and that is what also several others reported here)... I do not own the Teleplus HD pro DGX 2x TC, but in the tread linked below, Massimo ("guest") has tested it and found that it worked very well (maybe comparable to the Sony 2x TC, that can be used on Sony cameras together with the Canon 8-15mm with sufficient quality):

Be interesting to see some comparison images especially with the RF 2x.

How big of a consideration is the lens choice when mounting the camera to the DPV or does it not make much of a difference? Can anyone share some of the lessons they've learned or how much consideration I should give to lens choice. Figured I would ask before I started testing in the water in a week or two. In an ideal world I would use the WACP-1 but that might requrie too much bouyancy and drag to be practical. Unfortuately my Nauticam 5dMiii housing cannot use a WWL, otherwise that would be my primary choice. I already have a 8" dome but could pick up a smaller dome if it would be a lot more practical.

Hello! I am a rusty diver based in the Philippines and am looking to getting back into underwater imaging. I’m drawn to capturing things from wide reefscapes to intricate macro details — and all the stories in between the vibrant reefs to historical wrecks. Excited to be part of this community, and I hope to cross paths with you underwater soon! Rustico

Teleconverters do degrade the image. So a ”better” lens+teleconverter might give you a worse IQ result than a ”lesser” lens w/o converter in some other combo/set-up. Worth considering.

They are my wife's, she has all the talent in the family. Bill

@bvanant watched a couple of videos on your link above. Amazing! Ajay

I‘ll be bringing that setup to the water soon with the Canon RF 2.0x - I have also extensively shot the canon 8-15 with the Kenko 2.0x and love it. The IQ degradation is acceptable from the Kenko 2.0x as a trade for the enormous flexibility. That said, I always look forward into finding more optimized image quality gear. Special thanks also to @ChipBPhoto for sharing his extensive impression on WWL and WACP family. It confirms my impression that the only interesting candidate is the WACP-1 which comes at higher costs and weight. If you already operate an 8-15 Fisheye then the barrier to buy this is quite high as two good teleconverters will get you almost there as well. However I must gnarl that the Canon 2.0x TC is also a heavy beast compared to the Kenko 2.0x 😅 I think the best example for simple design and truly lightweight and absolute superior optic ist the old Nikonos 15mm (equivalent to 20mm prime). I wish we had more of that and an option to utilize it in the Canon RF mount system.

welcome aboard Drew, good to have you here.

Dave noted above that ABS is a stronger material and also the fact that printer settings can be an issue. You could try contacting forum member gudge who replied above to print you one. He printed mine and it seems pretty sturdy. He's based in Australia so you would be dealing with shipping etc. but should get a good gear out of it.

The field of view can be calculated, assuming it's an equisolid projection, here'a table for the 8-15 on a full frame with data based on a diagonal field of 175° which is what I have seen reported as the filed of the Canon 8-15 lens: Focal length Horizontal vertical diagonal Rectilinear 8-15 equiv 8 Circular 180.0 FE 15 140.7 90.4 175.0 6.5 21 97.2 63.7 118.4 15.8 30 67.0 44.3 80.9 27 The last column is the focal length of a rectilinear lens with the same horizontal field, it shows you should get similar reach to a 16mm rectilinear with the 1.4x attached at full zoom (21mm focal length) The last row is where it gets interesting, if you can adapt a 2x you the equivalent reach of a 27mm lens and effectively a 4x zoom in terms of horizontal field. But so far only an adapted Canon 8-15 with a Sony 2x has shown good quality results. The Kenko 2x image quality doesn't seem the best and fitting a Canon 2x to an RF-EF converter is locked out, I think there was one post on here about that where someone machined a third party RF-EF adapter to use a Canon 2x with the Canon 8-15.

Thanks for the input. I don't have my own printer so was using a 3rd party. They printed it using ABS but it was pretty fragile. I'll try to have one printed using PETG and see how that goes.

I have the same opinion. The 8-15 + 1.4x TC is a terrific setup for close larger animals in an ultra-wide FoV. It’s my go-to for manatees, for example. I also prefer this combo if I know I’m photoing wrecks, especially for wide exterior or interior frames. I find the water contact optics at 130 degrees are often not quite wide enough for full room captures in a confined space. That’s where the 8-15/TC wins every time. As far as IQ, honestly they both seem about the same to me when viewing without a high zoom on the screen. Great octo-action frame @Dave_Hicks !

(The one in the UK) I certified in 2003, and started taking photos (with an Oly C5050Z) soon after. Switched to an E-520 some time later. I took a break (to do a Photography B.A.), but kept pool shoots up, with Canon 5Ds (https://drewk.photo/showcase/underwater/ - note this is NSFW). I’m (warm water) diving again now, and have just bought an Insta360 action cam, looking to get some moving image work done.