All Activity

Washington state and Victoria Canada depending on the week.

Thank you for your reactions. I use the same 45mm Leica lens Davide uses, and from your reactions I think the CMC-2 will be better to my liking. Probably my CMC-1 will be gathering dust here as well.

Hi AquaZ Welcome aboard! Do you have a DSRL, Mirrorless or Action Camera? Ciao

Well, in the worst case I have to take off the shades before the dive. Actually, I never(!) made photos with my old Seacam FMP using the 8-15 in circular mode, but in some situation it could be a nice option anyway. I would appreciate this coating on a superdome 😁... was always struggling to avoid drops in the image. Honestly: do you use the small dome for split shots? How ist the corner sharpness with your Marelux system now? Do you know the exact position of the entrance pupil of the 8-15? It might move a bit zooming in and out... The 8-15 is relatively forgiving regarding exact positioning and corner sharpness behind a dome - at least much more than a rectilinear WA lens. Do you have a link to this dome? I'm very open about 3rd party stuff (already bought something from Saga) and just curious. Btw: do you consider using the 8-15 in combination with a TC? For me it was the set up in at least 80% of my WA dives: almost no quality loss and much more flexibility - and as I wrote, I wasn't shooting circular yet.

Where are you located?

Well, I am not sure if I can encourage you to take that path for 3 reasons: 1st You should check, verify if the Nauticam small dome allows you to detach the lens hood underwater. Otherwise you will be unable to shoot 8mm pictures. 2nd I have shot the Marelux 140mm FE Dome, which is rumored to be very identical to the above with the exception of having that removable sunshade feature and a special optical coating which is supposed make water drip off the dome front really fast with splitshots (I can confirm that coating actually has an effect). 3rd while you could think that the Marelux and Nauticam small domes are a full half sphere, they are actually not (if identical). A small part before reaching half sphere is missing plus it is covered by approx half cm tunnel, due to the frame the dome glas is mounted on. Issue number 3 results in the dome having to be slightly mispositioned and that you will be unable to nail the entrance pupil in the dome center. I have the assumption that I could squeeze out even a bit more corner sharpness on the 8-15mm if I am able to fix this. I am currently for the above reason considering getting a third party small optical glas coated fisheye dome from Hydronalin with also mm exact positioning. It will be smaller and more affordable but should increase IQ even further as luckily the Canon 8-15mm requires a dome radius of no more than 4.1 - 3.8 cm (depending on the zoom position). The smaller dome should improve the needed DOF for the field curvature of the virtual image. I'll let you know my results in the new year, I guess.

Hi AquaZ A warm welcome to Waterpixels. If you're looking to pick up some u/w photography skills, you have sure come to the right place! Very good to have you with us. We hope you enjoy the forum. Best wishes

Hi everyone, I’m new here and excited to join the Waterpixels community. I’ve always felt connected to the ocean and underwater environments the calm, the light, and the life below the surface really draw me in. I’m still learning and hoping to improve my underwater skills while learning from others here.

Sorry if this answer came across as a bit harsh. 🙏 But it's a fact that a great IQ above water is no guarantee for underwater. Of course, optical disasters above water don't improve underwater, but often simple optical calculations have advantages underwater. Well, I'll post findings and results here asap, proised. At least opticallimits (photozone before) was doing some of their testings with a 5Ds, which is still the canon reference concerning resolution. And some comparisons can also be made quite well at the-digital-picture site. I'll most likely go for the 140mm FE dome first which is hardly recommended here in the forum. A good solution if the IQ is already better than with my Seacam superdome - and quite affordable and compact. And I'll try the modified Commlite adapter to shoot with the RF 1,4TC which should enable a better IQ than my old Kenko. Just need to know which extension rings I need - as far as I remember 30mm and another 20mm for the TC. And for split shots I really have to invest in a big dome some day. Btw: there is a so called Nauticam N120 9" (230mm) Fisheye Dome: https://sagadive.com/en/product/cupula-nauticam-n120-5-5-140mm-fisheye/ Is this a misinformation? I can't find this item on the Nauticam site.

This reads a little ignorant of the facts and giving yourself away to fatalism and Blackbox statements… (claimed by some uw manufacturers and uw ambassadors). It‘s true that working yourself towards a premium underwater optical solution cannot be done by following only land based tests and lens criteria. But you have to start to work your way down towards the best lenses somehow. This was my point when giving you some directions. A flawed lens rarely can be cured by an underwater contact optic and it is no rocket science to understand the details that matter to get good results. As you are around for a while in this, I am confident you will critically and prudently search for an optimum. In fact I‘d like to read your personal findings in that journey here soon, as we are not too many fellow RF Canon shooters. My point was that (even land based) public sharpness tests for lenses are surprisingly scarce in the net and unfortunately there seems to be no source that has prudently measured RF and EF lenses under the same lab conditions. Furthermore Camera sensors and measuring techniques have evolved and not all lens test have been done on an R5 body. That means you have to pull together various sources and take everything with a grain of salt to get a clear picture and vague scale on what’s possible and how things behave when you are obsessed about uw sharpness in general and corner sharpness. Then take the interesting lens candidates and have a look where the entrance pupil is located and what their minimum focus distance (MFD) is. This is beneficial for domes as well as WACP, Aquista, WWL & Co. You will be able to boil it down to a surprisingly short list for the Canon RF System. Some of the very good candidates do not even appear in the manufacturers port charts. If you get a glas dome instead of your acrylic dome will have no real optical gain. The only difference for Glas domes is that they are more resilient to micro scratches and will last much longer. Glas domes have to be taken into the optical equation while most acrylic will become invisible underwater. I shoot a glass dome though.

Wow, that's a bucket list experience for me. You must have been stoked!

I currently own an EF 8-15/4 and an RF 14-35/4. I previously owned a 16-35/4 and a 17-40/4 (didn't use this one uw). I'm familiar with these sites, but photozone is now called https://opticallimits.com/ (which I find very reputable), and I also prefer the-digital-picture for A/B comparisons. However, none of this helps in the search for high-quality lenses for underwater photography, since the complex optical designs and intricate constructions of lenses often only produce mediocre results underwater. Btw: the lenstip.com link doesn't work, but I found the website. Unfortunately, it seems that no RF lenses are tested there - at least I can't find a single review. I used the 5D4 for years and the difference in resolution between the 5D Mark IV and the R5 is much smaller in reality than it appears on paper. The long edge has 6720 px compared to 8192 px, which is just a little bit over 20% less. And of course, the RF 100/2,8 has very good optical quality - I'm using it myself.

Sorry, I still don‘t get which lenses you now actively own and shoot 🥴 - Do you already have the RF14-35mm ? If you are in search of highest IQ you need to start of with researching the lpmm performance of Canon lenses topside tests. They can be found on test sites such as lenstips.com digitalkamera.de or photozone.de etc Logically any lens combined with a perfectly sized and positioned dome or water contact optic ( such as the WACP, WWL, FCP etc ) cannot perform above their land design. It‘s at least very unlikely, I suppose. So starting of with that bottleneck factor makes sense. On lenstip you will find the following interesting statement about the Canon 8-15mm F4 L fisheye zoom: Which at that time of the review was record breaking 😉 - when you compare this with values reached by RF lenses today, even the basic kit lenses range above 50 lpmm in the interesting wide angle space. Your just cancelled order RF24-50 does have 56 lpmm / 49,2 lpmm (12 % falloff) in center/corner @ F5.6 30mm zoom. So generally preferable would be to host RF lenses over EF Adapted lenses in most cases. Also friends and users not owning a high megapixel Canon mirrorless might perceive optical performance as great and will not be able pixelpeep as intensively as you if they are still on a 5D Mark IV etc. In the Canon System the highest performer from the underwater lineup lenses is the ‎   Canon RF 100 mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM with 86,5 lp/mm @F4 according to digitalkamera lab test, to give you a rough reference on what is possible. About the dome I suggest you cross consult with Andi at Hydronalin Germany.

Yikes! That doesn’t look good! I’m sure it will be better when a proper case if available.

I had a dual pane exterior window in my flat lose its integrity some years ago. I didn’t bother with it for years as the condensation dried and calcified. When I finally took it apart, after I tired of looking through fogged glass, it was too late to save.

The A6700 is pretty good, eh? I love mine but don’t have a housing for it as yet. Very sad about Light & Motion. I liked their lights.

Could someone please confirm that this is the 140mm dome port that is recommended for the 8-15/4? Thanks! Nauticam | 140mm fisheye port with removable shade (N120) | PanOceanPNauticam | 140mm fisheye port with removable shade (N120)...House of Underwater Photography | Nauticam | 140mm fisheye port with removable shade (N120 | authorized Nauticam Dealer in Germany | FREE SHIPPING within th

No misunderstanding from my side. 😁 There was(!) a EF 16-35/4 (btw a very good and affordable lense) and I used it for years. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_16-35mm_lens Better corner performance than version I and II of the F2,8 model. Anyway, the 14-35/4 outperforms the 16-35/4 a little bit in IQ (I compared them) and has the extra 2mm.

Ok, now I understand what you meant - thanks! I'm familiar with the RF 1.4 TC issue and have read several times about the workaround using the Commlite adapter (only among wildlife photography, which I also do), but I haven't yet dared to order and modify it (doesn't actually look soooo complicated). I think I should give it a try – especially since I still own a relatively old Kenko 1.4 TC, which is probably even worse in terms of image quality. Ohh, and I just found out that the Canon RF 1,4 TC is about the same size as the Kenko - so finding the right Nauticam zoom ring shouldn't be a problem, looks quite promising. Well, at least RomiK seems to be much more convinced by the WACP-C in this post: ... although of course he only shows a crop from the center of the image. 😉 Well, I would love the flexibility of the WACP-C, because I haven't had that for many years. On the other hand, I don't want to trade it for significantly worse image quality, especially since the WACP-C isn't exactly cheap.

OK,… was there a misunderstanding? Above you wrote that you have the RF14-35 and not the EF.. actually there is just an EF17-40 F4 and an EF16-35 F2.8 - I am not aware of any EF16-35/4 ever build. Could you please clarify that? The Canon RF 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM is great but it does not make sense for you to buy it when you already own the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L. When you think about combining the RF15-30 with an WWL type or WACP lens be aware that you functional zoom range will be limited to 28-30mm which turns this formidable wide angle zoom into a somewhat uw prime lens with minimal adjustment possibilities.

Thanks Chris - I haven't tried warming it up a little, but will to see if it evolves. Servicing might prove difficult for this model I think. Yes that's what I'm afraid of. Not sure if it's actually possible to fix such an issue. I wrote to AOI, we'll see what they say.

I am afraid they might be assembled in a dry air or nitrogen glove box otherwise you would always have condensation.

There's nothing you can do until a proper housing is available. Take a look at the last comments in this thread for the X5. Even the original "basic" case didn't solve the stitching issue. And I'm sure it depends on FW too. https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2592-insta360-x5-underwater/

Hi, we dived Fuva last year. Male to Fuva we paid a lot on "carry on" on domestic. They even refused to reduce the price for 5kg allowance for both of us because we had "overload". So we had to pay for """"All WEIGHT"" carry on. From Fuva to Male nobody was interested on weight of carry on. Same Airline. Br Markus

I know that the official case is not out yet, so i went head and i got one from ALI, here the result of a shallow dive at 9mt. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w_36n5rDQOw is there a way to improve it, while i wait/prey for DJI for realise an official dive case