All Activity

This is from another thread that evolved into the direction of some direct FullFrame Canon 24-50 STM image samples including the very interesting RAW files @ 24mm focal length paired with the Nauticam WWL-C lens. I'd like not to give up on this lens, though - just think you have to use other conversion optics tailored to start working @28mm or more. It's funny that you will not only have to close your aperture to improve corner sharpness but also have to zoom in 🫠😄 .. that's new!

I fully agree - "fisheye look" is something that one loves or hates. Some UW-photographers hate it, but many like it (includig the ones that have wetoptics e.g. WACP/WWL from Nauticam (that also creates fisheye optics, but not as radical as circular or 180° diagonal as the diagonal angle of view is smaller (< 130°)))... I don't think that one should use the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye with TCs. This lens is developed for APS-C(DX) and at 10mm, starts more or less, with 180° diagonal (addition of a TC would, to my personal opinion, rather decrease versatility). In addition the optics of this lens is below average (on the surface) and it is o.k. for UW, but there are no reserves for "blowing up" the image with TCs. When using this lens on MFT sensor, the sharpness is better when the lens is adapted via the 0.71x speedbooster (that compresses the image circle and so increases sharpness on the sensor), compared to using the glassless 1x adapter (when using this lens with the glasless 1x adapter, the zoom range is pretty comparable to the WWL/WACP configurations BTW)...

DOOMSDAY DEVICE!!!

This is super useful ! Thanks. Indeed, I was not sure how a dome port would affect optics. In the example you link to a wide-angle lens is used. Is it the same with a fisheye (I guess so... ?), or a fisheye "naturally" already has more corner softness (I'm thinking either of the Tokina 10-17mm or the Canon 8-15mm) ? The Sony ecosystem, mostly due to the autofocus and friends/family using it, should be the way to go for me. I also looked into the Sony 10-18mm F4 wide-field as a possibility - it would be nicer for wrecks, but I would lose the extra FOV from the fisheyes... On the other hand, I would play with it topside more often than with a fisheye. For macro... yeah, this is a little more tricky. I would be happy with CFWA (or fisheye), and the idea of using a teleconverter, line Tinman suggests, sounds interesting.. Regarding travelling, I'm not putting that into the equation. I've been diving mostly at my backyard which has plenty of life - even more since the coastal area became part of the Calanques National Park. I'm putting this kit together to shoot locally. If one day I'll go elsewhere and happen to dive there (this past summer I was in the Azores, and it was beautiful !) I'll just have to use my photographic memory instead... :P Won't a small dome (small means 6 inches... ? 4 .... ?) introduce more corner aberrations ? And would those be less obvious when zooming in? Another question, when you add a teleconverter does the minimum focusing distance of the lens change? The housing might be the weak link here... unless I find a more premium housing in the used market, I might have to go with Salted Line / Seafrogs. yeah, thanks for pointing this out. Chris post and the article he linked to make that clear enough ! I'm leaning towards the Sony 10-18mm lens that would work fine while using the Salted Line A6xxx housing (zoom ring available) and shouldn't require adapters, inside a 6 inch dome. But, I'm attracted by the possibilities of the Tokina (or the Canon).

Thankfully Landvogt1893 send me the RAW files and we can have a look at the two uncorrected RAW files to learn how much of the image is actually black and artificially generated. I have activated Lightrooms overlay to give you a better idea of the dimensions. If you want to shoot 4x5 you still have some black corners, but much less, which you could also fill with Photoshop's content aware fill: There seems also be some lens flaring in the 2nd image provided. Here is one of the corners, Waso was so curious about: I have also made this illustration of the corner to show you where the lens correction moves the corner to fill the frame: So, what do we learn from this? In my view it’s quite surprising to spend more than $1,000 / €1,000 on the Nauticam WWL-C for dismal results like these - especially when strong in-camera corrections and additional processing make the output look somewhat “artificial”. Especially if you could also have gone for the much cheaper INON UWL-95S (roughly half the price) and achieved similar ( or maybe even better ) results, with a more compact setup - assuming you’re pairing it with the Canon RF 24–50mm STM. 🫣 At the same time, in some parts of the world the WWL-1B and the WWL-C cost the same - or the WWL-1B is even available for less. Considering that the WWL-1B (optimized for 28mm) also has a reputation for higher image quality than the WWL-C (optimized for 24mm), I don’t really understand why Nauticam doesn’t recommend zooming slightly to 28mm and choosing the WWL-1B instead of the WWL-C.

Yes, I use the dual flip all the time now, with the AOI +6 and the CMC-1 - had to balance it with a buoyancy block, but it's fine. On the LX10 the main issue is that the port is so short the lens can bump into the housing, and do get in the way of the lights for macro, but it's manageable. It shouldn't be an issue with a longer port. Streamlining and macro don't go together 😁 my "compact" LX10 rig in BW neutral buoyancy configuration - some people have nicknamed it the Nostromo... I'm a little torn on the 90 vs. 100mm - I was planning on getting the 90mm because there are good deals now, but after looking into it it looks like tracking / video AF might be really optimised on the new 100mm, which could be interesting... I feel I might regret getting the 90mm as a first (and final, for a while) purchase... grass is always greener, all that 😅

What species of shark is this one, by the way?

Interesting - I did not know that the noise made with plastic bottle attracts sharks because they think there is a shark somewhere eating fish... I have seen myself that "plastic bottle noise" attracts sharks: years ago a guide practiced it sucessfully at Daedalus Reef/Egypt to attract hammerhead sharks at a depth of approx. 30m. It was very impressive, but I did not feel that it was dangerous (the hammerhead sharks there are shy and, unfortunately, other divers quickly approaching the few "scouts" chased them away, before the entire school showed up ☹️) I think there must be other, additional, factors, e.g. baiting/feeding that makes sharks agressive and dangerous...

The Atom has a Red light mode! The snoot mod I built worked well, dove it tonight.

Not rumors - it is true. I do Shark Tank around twice a year, and was there late Dec. Hardly any sharks to be seen. The dredging should be done by March or so - let’s see how long it takes the sharks to return. I’ve been diving Shark Tank and Fuva for the past 4-5 years and both locations are getting busier. Even before the dredging, the number of sharks at Shark Tank had come down a bit - too many boats, too much feeding. I was seeing shed tons of fish heads, etc lying at the bottom. And Fuva is becoming a bit of a circus now, with divers and freedivers constantly pirouetting down into the shark feeding area, likely to meet their quota of social media footage. FWIW, a more convenient way to get to Fuva, for whom the connection works, is SL Airways which has a direct flight from Colombo to Gan. A few days in Gan/Addu make a nice complement to Fuva - you get mantas and a lovely shipwreck there. These days, that’s my preferred itinerary for diving that region, especially given how busy the Fuva tiger site has gotten.

The Atom flash with the snoot looks very good ... I have good experience with using MF-2 with OS-1. In the "snoot mode" the MF-2 has enough power for the way I make macro photos (not enough power, however, for my taste, when I use MF-2 without snoot). The only drawback of the MF-2/OS-1 combo I see is the lack of a red aiming light (maybe the new MF-3 has red light?), since some critters get scared by the white illumination when adjusting the frame... I am now thinking to acquire a snoot for my HF-1s ("Bazooka" as Adventurer calls it 😄). Alternatively an additional Atom flash with snoot, both for snooting and as a spare flash...

$1100 for the housing plus $165 for the periscope stick (Ø37x350 Carbon Fibre Aluminium Float Stick (Buoyancy 190g)) Well cheaper abroad obviously.

waso, I am attaching a couple of images, no crop, no edit, so you can look pixel peep if you desire, of course there are different f/stop depth of field varies and images resized to enable upload here, not sure if that affects how you can see the quality of the lens performance.

Perfect solution for over under shots! Is it April?

I have an Olympus 60mm and do mostly fish portraits. One issue I have is focus hunting. Does anyone have experience using the MFO-1 or MFO-3 with these lens combinations and did it help with faster focusing?

You may not like the fisheye perspective for wrecks, that is down to taste. A factor to consider is that behind a dome port you'll have to stop down to get decent sharpness in the corners. There is plenty written by far more intelligent people than I am about why.

Also it seems the optics reduce the depth of field, noticeable in CFWA work, there was a thread on it a while back in the initial flurry after it was introduced.

Well, I would suggest that you base your selection on the availability of lenses and ability to easily add more lenses as time goes by without requiring a camera system change and the consequent new housing. UW is quite different to land based photography. using wide angle lenses up close to reduce water between you and the subject. I tried for the first year or two to apply some land based techniques and found they didn't work so well. Placing a lens in a dome port doesn't make it just like on land , it's necessary to stop down to deal with the aberrations caused by dome port optics, most people shoot around f11-13 for wide angle behind a dome port, even fisheyes are generally stopped down. Some of the wetoptics can be opened up a bit more. Typically a flexible solution involves a zoom lens, you can swim right up to a coral reef, but if you try doing the same thing to a shark or a tuna it will swim away. SO being able to zoom from a static subject to something with some more reach is very handy. By more reach it's something in the range of a 30mm equivalent lens on full frame. It's still significantly more reach than a fisheye. Wide apertures are used in macro work, where you can actually create some good bokeh, in wide angle work it can create some rather ugly out of focus things in the corners. Here is an example of photo taken 17mm and f8 in a small dome, note the lower left corner: https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839 For fish portraits a longer zoom or a short macro lens tend to be good options. Again I'd suggest rather than gravitating to a camera body go ahead and see what you would need for macro, mid range and wide in a couple of different systems, then see how much it will cost you and the weight and size. I don't know if you plan to travel for diving but a compact system makes traveling a lot easier.

I need to read more on this. Both the Tokina and the Canon 8-15mm seem to be favourites. I'll dig deeper in the forums :)

You just have to dive at "periscope depth" and you can shoot on and under the surface simultaneously....

I've got a Tokina fisheye for use with my Nikon DX systems. I never developed a fondness for it because I wasn't impressed with the field of view curvature, but that's just me. I did pick-up a Nikkor 8-15mm fisheye to use with my Nikon FX system. I think it will work better for me with a small dome for close focus wide-angle. If you get a good housing, zoom control shouldn't be an issue. With the Tokina fisheye, a lot of photographers use it with a teleconverter to increase the versatility of the lens. -Tinman

It's also flippin' huge.

Yes, I'm leaning heavily towards the Sony ecosystem. I spent quite a lot of my sofa-time (the last couple of weeks of bad weather - and under the weather - around here) reading about options. Thanks for he tips on focal lengths. I have to check about the Tokina too, as mentioned by Lewis88. Depending on the housing, it seems zoom control is not always possible....

yup, better as in, better as achieving out of focus outside of focus plane with large apertures.

Small sensor size is one of the drawbacks of the TG Series. This particular drawback is one of the reasons that some upgrade to other cameras as their skills develop. When TG users ask me how they can get better images from their cameras, I usually start with talking about the importance of lighting equipment. I've worked with some underwater photographers who basically decided they were serious enough about underwater photography to just invest in professional level equipment from the start. These folks had an "I want it all" mindset and have done well. Starting with a point & shoot type camera would've been a waste of time and money for them. Why spend money on a system that's not going to take you where you want to go? It's hard to beat the flexibility that a zoom lens gives you for wide-angle underwater imaging. My go-to lens when I was doing a book project a few years ago was my Nikkor 10-24mm zoom. This lens even worked well to capture close focus wide-angle shots of sea horses. Since making a jump to a full frame camera system, my Nikkor 17-35mm is my most commonly used lens. The only fixed focal length lenses I use underwater are my Nikkor 105mm and 60mm macro lenses. For what it's worth, the 60mm is quite good for capturing images of small to medium sized skittish fish. Your posts and commentary seem to indicate willingness to jump in the proverbial 'deep end of the pool' with a Sony system. If that's where you're at, start assembling a system and jump in! (LOL) -Tinman