All Activity

Please post, ideas, suggestions and bugs if you find any here. So I can keep track of things in one place.

The new Waterpixels Marketplace is now running, and we’d like everyone to start using it for buy/sell/trade posts. For now, the existing Classifieds forum will stay open while we finish testing the posting rules and make sure the Marketplace works the way it should for new members, post-count limits, and normal member access. Once that testing is done, we’ll restrict new posting in Classifieds and move future listings to the Marketplace. Please use the Marketplace for new listings whenever possible, and let us know if anything feels confusing or does not work right. A few things to check while using it: - Creating a listing - Uploading photos - Choosing the default listing photo - Posting into the right category or categories - Marking an item as sold or closed - Browsing and filtering listings - Saving listings to favorites If you run into a bug, please post what happened and, if possible, include the browser/device you were using. Screenshots help too. The goal is to make the Marketplace easier to browse and manage than the old Classifieds forum, while keeping the same community rules and protections in place. Timeline: - Marketplace is live now - Classifieds will remain open briefly while we finish testing - After testing, new Classifieds posting will be restricted - Existing Classifieds content will remain available for reference You can find the Marketplace in the main navigation or in the below link. Marketplace Please give it a try and post feedback. This is ready enough to start using, and we’ll keep tuning it based on what people find.

Quiet a few people here use the Canon fisheye with Metabones adapter, it's well established solution as Sony does not have a native fisheye. On the topic of 16-35, some reach is helpful however I really don't think you want to be using a big dome when chasing whales. If you look at the WACP and 28-60 and the horizontal field of view - which shows approximately how big a subject will fit in the frame, it goes from about the field of a 13-14mm lens through about the the reach of a 29mm lens, so it terms of horizontal field it is like a 14-29mm lens and compare this to a 16-35 mm lens it's more or less the same, but with better corners of the frame in the WACP and better ability to shoot wider apertures. The combination of a Canon 8-15 and a Sony/metabones on the other hand goes from a 180° diagonal fisheye with about 144° horizontal field of view through to a 28mm rectilinear lens, it's about equivalent to a 7-28mm rectilinear lens if you could get one. It's reported to have equivalent sharpness to a WACP/Sony 28-60 setup. I would suggest the 28-35mm range won't be too useful for whales, at that focal length to fit in the frame a whale would be on the deg of visibility. This post is a good one on the Sony 2x/metabones/140mm dome combination: I have an OM-1 with Canon 8-15 on metabones and that is what I would be taking if going to shoot whales.

Hey Alex, Another great question. It’s all about the right tool for the right need. If I want to capture an ultra wide scene, it’s the 140 dome and Canon 8-15, with and without a teleconverter. This could be massive reefscapes, wreckscape, or interior room to show an expansive 180 view. If I want to do a typical all around dive or capture big animals where a true zoom is beneficial, it’s a WACP or WWL. If I ever want to get serious about splits or need a rectilinear look, a 230 dome would be best. Thus far it has not been enough of an interest for me to warrant the investment. Which is “better?” None, in my opinion. They are simply tools to maximize the photo opportunity or capture the desired image. Cheers Chip

On Sony a good combo seems to be: 140mm dome Canon 8-15 Sony 2.0 TC My current wide angle setup is the mechanical Nikonos 15 or Sea&Sea 12mm and nothing is lighter or more compact. However doing CFWA is a challenge with them and I intend on going the route above at some point as a general traveling setup. Perhaps not as perfect as the RS or WACP-C but significantly cheaper and a touch more versatile.

With a large dome you can do over unders. But inme wide rectlinear lenses are not as good as Naticam wet optics for corner to corner sharpness. You need a fisheye for that. The wwls are quick and easy to burp, and inme often not even needed, the wacp and dome has the advantage of being ready immediately. In my short but sweet experience with WWL:s … a little sensitive to creating ugly (not cool looking ones) flares when you shoot against the sun. Have never experienced that delicacy with domes. Maybe a wwl-c specific?

Size for travel. RS13 weights 1070g total (lens and port). Some sizes/weights were discussed here. Actual size is this: And its sharper than any water contact optic and most (if not all) dome combos. Drawbacks are fixed 13mm and availability.

Hey Chip, Thanks for the great feedback. It’s good to hear that flare isn’t a major issue. May I ask when you tend to use your dome instead of the WACP-C, and vice versa?

thanks for you response. Why did you get rid of the WACP-C?

Hey Chris, Thanks for the great feedback. I like the fisheye option, but since it's not a native Sony lens and requires adapters, I'm a bit hesitant. I was also thinking that with whales, having the flexibility and extra reach of a 16–35mm could be really useful? So, to summarize: if you were heading to French Polynesia specifically for whale photography, what would your lens choice be? I'll also be going to Fakarava afterwards to dive the Wall of Sharks, so I'm trying to find the best overall setup for the trip.

Investment in a Nikonos 13 might be an option (specially for humpback encounters), but expensive and not suitable with your August timeframe tho. I got rid of my WACP-C and got RS13, havent missed WACP-C a single bit.

I definitely agree, some handle the spotlight effect well, some don't the bobtail beinf an example of the latter, whilst a nice shot of the bobtail itself I'm less keen on the lighting. Critters sitting on substrate is always a little tricky for me. I'll definitely try that next time, thanks for the tip! It works great in that example.

Natural red light does not exist at a certain depth. What you see here is a derivative of green fluorescent protein (GFP), a red-fluorescent protein found inside the anemone. The protein generates the red light from green or blue light. (The fluorescence is excited by light with a very specific, shorter wavelength). If the flash is too strong, it will overpower the fluorescent light. Without flash it should work. No idea why it doesn’t in your case. I photographed a similar looking anemone some years ago without problems.

I believe you are talking about different lenses. @dentrock is talking about the Sony 16-25, you are talking about the 16-35 II. I think the issue with the 230mm dome is living with it for travel, the size and weight when diving with it, including the drag when trying to swim with it.This is as much or more of a concern than the expense. With whales you are jumping off a boat and swimming around trying to get in position - a 230mm dome is not going to make that easy. you are also asking about flare, and mentioned problems with your ikelite port with reflections - these are different issues and causes. Acrylic ports are known to cause reflection issues and glass domes are less prone to this. Unless you are going for artistic effects flare is probably best dealt with by planning to be dropped on the sunny side of the whales and good operators will try to achieve this. If I were doing it I'd want to be using a fisheye lens, they work well in small ports and are quite sharp, you do need to pay attention to corners as they can be easy to include stray fins and other distractions on the edge of the frame. The WACP will certainly work, it's just not quite as wide.

Hey @AlexUW26 - great questions. Everything has a trade off. Have I experienced flare when aiming at certain angles pointing up towards the sun? On occasion, yes. And with the WWL as well. Is it frequent or did it impact my overall photo session? Not in the least. It’s something you can easily see when making the image, and equally easily slightly modify the angle to eliminate the momentary flare. It actually has nothing to do with depth as I have encountered it at 100’. Its simply the light coming in. As an added bonus, it is incredible if you like CFWA images. It can focus at near macro closeness making it an all around solution. As I said, everything has a trade off. The smaller size, sharpness, and versatility easily offset the minor quirk. I have other lenses and domes I use for specific needs, but for a great all around solution I personally feel it’s a winner. Hope this helps! Chip

Really nice pictures. Thank you!

For years, I have come across anemones which have such vibrant, red/pink tentacles. They are rare to see and every time I take a picture of them, the color looks drab. I try all different settings, even without strobe but it always looks so dull yet to the naked eye, it glows. What am I doing wrong? Below is an example of an unprocessed picture of an anemone that to the naked eye, was so vibrant.

Yes, same thought here. I was of the thinking that the WACP would be at least as good as the WWL and IMO the WWL is not prone especially to flare. Flare has not been a problem for me in thousands of shots and I love to shoot back against the sun for CFWA and other WA shots. This photo, divers and boat, is fairly horrid, I missed the moment but it demonstrates that the WWL does not flare. In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing flare though I am sure it can occur, any lens can flare into the sun. The fish ball photo shows flare, Canon S90, Inon UFL165AD (acrylic dome), a lens that is prone to flare if not careful, I have never had the WWL ever do anything like this under much worse conditions.

With my Ikelite large dome, the reflections were quite bad. Even if I covered the text on the lens, I would still get noticeable flare when shooting towards the sun. If the WWL handles flare well, though, wouldn't the WACP-C perform similarly? Or are there some optical differences between them that affect flare resistance? I was under the impression that their image quality was very comparable.

How have you found flare with the WACP-C? Is it generally manageable when shooting whales or other large animals near the surface with the sun nearby? And in what situations would you choose a dome over the WACP-C, or the WACP-C over a dome?

I have never owned or used a glass dome with a WA or FE lens. However, I have a 4.33 acrylic dome and a fisheye and I find the WWL much sharper corner to corner and much less prone to flare shooting into the sun and general internal reflections. I too am curious as to why the various flavors of the WACP would be prone to flare? Such would certainly be a part of my "dream" system, I thought. Flare can be artistic but it can also be quite annoying.

What about your experience with flaring? Is it something you run into often, or is it generally manageable? For example, how does it perform when shooting whales or other large animals close to the surface with the sun in the frame or just outside it? Would you recommend the WACP-C or a dome setup in that situation?

Thanks for your response! Yes, the 16-35mm f/2.8 II is the lens I'm talking about. I saw that Nauticam recommends the 230mm dome for it, but that's quite a serious investment. That's actually why I started looking into the WACP-C as an alternative. Ideally, I'd like to keep the setup relatively compact and not spend a fortune. I usually shoot around f/8-f/9 and don't mind going to f/11 if needed. I've been using the acrylic Ikelite dome port so far, so I'm not really spoiled by high-end glass domes. Curious to hear what your experience has been and whether you've had good results with a smaller dome on this lens.