All Activity

I am not familiar with the Canon lens choices, but very likely this choice is similar to the Sony system (it is a problem for UW, that the systems lack really very suitable lenses, e.g 15-35mm f/4 fisheye; but for these perspectives the wet lenses do exist)... I am sure a switch from Canon R5II to Sony A1 will not make a recognizable difference, but a careful evaluation of WA combinations available for Canon will certainly improve the photographic potential (WACP-2 with 14-35mm lens is certainly far away from the optimum)...

I just want to give a short feedback, although I believe I am the only one here in the forum with the Canon R5/Nauticam combination... I've now bought pretty much all the essential equipment I'll need in the near future. A super dome for split shots will certainly follow at some point, but it's not needed right now. At the beginning of June '26, I was able to gain some initial experience, but only so far with the following setup: Canon R5 in a Nauticam housing with Nauticam 140mm fisheye dome Canon EF 8-15/4 Fisheye with Canon RF 1.4 extender adapted with a Commlite EF/RF adapter and Saga zoom ring 2x HF-1 Backscatter strobes incl. 4500K flat diffusors, most of the time with homemade snoot I will soon be testing the Canon RF 100/2.8 macro lens (possibly in combination with the Nauticam SMC-1) with the OS-3 Backscatter snoot and/or homemade snoots. I might also test the Canon RF 2.0 extender on the Canon 8-15/4. Due to poor visibility and wide angle, it didn't make sense to test the TTL capabilities of the e-TURTLE 3 SMART TTL converter. This test will be carried out in July and I will report on it here. My experience was as follows: The Nauticam housing isn't really well-suited for Eye-AF (due to the lack of a lever – there is only a button – for the *-button). Virtually all Canon photographers assign Eye-AF and Spot-AF to the AF-On and *-button for quick switching between the two AF functions. I reluctantly assigned the function to the depth-of-field preview button (for which Nauticam provides a lever down on the right!) and can therefore operate it with my right little finger. However, pulling this lever and simultaneously releasing the shutter while wearing thick gloves isn't exactly easy. Eye-AF is mostly useless underwater, but it sometimes helps, especially with cuttlefish. The lens hood of the 140mm fisheye dome does not appear to be manufactured 100% symmetrically (or the camera is not optimally positioned in the housing), at least when zooming out I always see the lower right part of the lens hood first - minimal, but it is annoying and 'costs' some focal length. What experiences have other users of this dome in combination with zoom lenses? But perhaps I should ask this question in a separate thread. Following the instructions of @Dave_Hicks (many thanks for that!), I had an extension printed for the HF-1's power intensity knob, which was incredibly helpful. Nevertheless, I'd also like to have one for the mode dial, as switching between M and SC mode is very difficult with thick gloves. Why can't manufacturers put themselves in the shoes of cold-water underwater photographers??? As I've mentioned in another posting, the combination of the 8-15/4 lens and the Canon RF 1.4 extender is optically superior (especially in the corners) to the combination with the older Kenko 1.4 extender. The disadvantage with the Commlite adapter is that the EXIF data isn't displayed correctly, as the extender itself isn't apparently recognized. This isn't a major issue, but I had to be careful not to stop down too much out of habit, because I always had to add an extra stop of exposure - unfortunately, it has happened a few times anyway - I have to slowly get used to it. All in all, apart from the minor flaws I have described, the equipment functioned reliably. Underwater conditions in the Dutch North Sea were far from optimal due to very poor visibility (between 1-3m), and therefore I mostly shot with very low strobe power (mostly 1/16), usually with a snoot and higher ISO. Because of the annual cuttlefish mating, I always try to spend a few days diving there around this time of the year. Of course, in some of the images I had to extensively remove backscatter during post processing. 😉 Btw: with these images, it obviously makes no sense to show crops from the corners. I hope to be able to deliver that later this year. All images are uncropped. The following four pictures were taken on the first day, when visibility was still at its best, up to 3 meters. Therefore, all pictures were taken with two HF-1 strobes (left/right) and slightly more strobe power (if I remember correctly, up to a maximum of 1/4.). Moon Jellyfish F25 (forgot to open up the aperture 🤐) | 1/250sec. | ISO 400 | @17mm: Moon Jellyfish F22 | 1/250 sec. | ISO 400 | @ 20mm: Common Cuttlefish (very small, just about 20cm long) F18 | 1/25 sec. | ISO 640 | @ 21mm: Common Cuttlefish (very small, all of them just about 20cm long) F20 | 1/25 sec. | ISO 640 | @21mm: The next two pictures are from day 2. Visibility was significantly worse than on the first day (especially noticeable in the second picture) and therefore only possible with a snoot. Common Cuttlefish couple (snooted) F22 | 1/250sec. | ISO 400 | @21mm: Common Cuttlefish couple (snooted) F14 | 1/25 sec. | ISO 800 | @ 21mm: On day 3, visibility was initially quite good (1st picture), but was becoming significantly worse later. Common Shore Crab & Common Spider Crab F20 | 1/40 sec. | ISO 1000 | @21mm 2x HF-1 strobes (left/right): Common Cuttlefish lays eggs (snooted) F16 | 1/40 sec. | ISO 1000 | @21mm: Common Cuttlefish couple (snooted) F16 | 1/40 sec. | ISO 1000 | @21mm: Common Cuttlefish couple (snooted) F16 | 1/40 sec. | ISO 1000 | @21mm:

Close-ups at 0:41 and 1:41 are shot with the Inon G165.

@BeppePADI the G165 Is nice, you can use it on the GoPro 9-13 to have a focus distance between 10 - 35 cm Outside of this range it start pretty quick to go out of focus The quality of the lens is really good, and you can make really nice video, with subjects of the right size, not too small. About using it on the Mission 1, I don't know if it's compatible, since the bigger GoPro sensor, will change it's working distances. I didn't see any news about that from INON yet

Hi @Adventurer - The lens correction referenced is done in LR during post. It can be disabled there. The best solutions are to either frame a little wider to crop the outer edges or not use the LR profile and manually update the image as needed. LR had the same issue with the original RF 24-240 profile. Not an uw lens, but a fantastic travel lens I frequently use.

IIRC this video of Vincenzo Striano was shot with the Inon G165. Try to reach him on YouTube, I'm sure Vincenzo will be glad to give some feedback.

I agree that in the hands of a professional it can get interesting effects, but in general having a wide lens and not being able to focus beyond 2.5 meters is a big problem. Inon and AOI will be forced to redesign their lenses, or this Mission 1 will be forgotten in a short time. The swan song of a company on the brink of despair. In the coming months we will see if these companies want to invest money in this project. The situation with close-up lenses is interesting. I have an AOI UCL-03 that I used for a project. Looking back, I should have bought the Inon, which is much more flexible. The AOI has a focus range of 4 to 8 cm, while the Inon has 10 to 25 cm. It is much more versatile. If the reduction of the focus range also applies to these lenses, my AOI becomes unusable. Inon, who knows. With the GoPro 11 I had to use a brush where I had marked the focus range with colored tape. I used it for time-lapses of gastropod mollusks.

Can't compare to WACP, but inme (wwl-c with z24-50) the WWL is a little bit more prone to ugly flares when shooting stills towards the sun than my old WA set-up with a dome (Hugyfot). Not a big issue as a tiny tilt will get rid of it. Do not know if this a specific wwl-c issue or z24-50 issue or the combination. I can only conclude that it sometime has occurred (rarely tho).

I have used strobes and video lights in UK waters. The advantage of video lights is you don’t need a separate torch and don’t need to think to much about camera setup which reduces task loading. You have already found out from your club lots of people are happily using this system. As pointed out you don’t get as much light as with a strobe and in the shallows with lots of ambient light you may struggle to get a good balance. Rick Ayrton used quite small video lights with a Nikon Z9 to great effect on deeper dives, he did use the cameras ludicrously high ISO capabilities. One thing to watch with the cheap Chinese lights is they have a very sharp edge to the light cone which can put nasty lines across your image. In short both work but if you are serious about your photography you will end up buying strobes at some point.

Hi, how is the G165 performing? I got it for my new Mission 1 Pro because I was looking for a close up rather then a real macro but online I didn't find much info about that lens.

Also have a look if you can fit the RF28MM pancake prime behind your WACP.

So you insist on shooting f2.8 for low light underwater and that’s you goal ? Congratulations… expect dismal performance of your high $$$ gear! Cranking up the ISO a few stops will give you better results then spending tons of $$$ on one more camera or lens. If you are desperately in search for an F2.8 candidate try to get that Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8 IS STM running behind your WACP and maybe live with a slightly limited zoom range on the Tele end.

I just got the L10 as casual vacation camera with the idea to get the Nauticam housing, in a near future, to start with a bit more serious underwater photography. Till now I only used the TG-6, the Ace Pro2 and I will now use the GoPro Mission 1 Pro. So I am going to follow this threat to learn from you, since this level of housings/lenses is all now to me.

True. But I think also mainly due to the fact that companies such as Nauticam and their dealers are not willing to deal with smart-ass customers who will complain about vignetting in online reviews. As in this forum you will not find the average Joe I would like to offer you a more geeky take on this problem and a viable solution: As Canon RF shooters we have various optics that use digital lens corrections which are heavily debated online. This results in quite a few RF lenses that will not project a full image circle on a full frame sensor at their widest focal length, such as the RF 24-50 STM, but also highly-priced L lenses , such as the RF 14-35 F4 L and RF 20-50 F4 L. (sony with the 28-60 has the problem too, but nobody seems to talk about it) What can you do about this? 1.) Look beyond Canons zoom range values and get a WACP/Aquista lens candidate that starts at 24 or 20mm instead of 28mm, as these will usually project a full image circle on sensor when zoomed in. 2.) don’t get an L lens with a wide opened front glas, get the more lightweight grey non-L version of a RF lens instead, to avoid having issues peeking through a tight porthole. Here the best example is choosing the RF24-105 STM over the more expensive USM L version. You will not need / shoot the more wide open aperture when shooting underwater. 3.) be okay with not using the full zoom range, so the RF24-105 STM will not extend too much and not move the entrance pupil dramatically when zoomed from 24-70mm. Various land-based reviews of the Canon 24-105mm STM validate it as an ultra-sharp competitor and point out that it‘s worthwhile saving $1000 when choosing it over the constant more open aperture L version. On my Ivanoff Corrector Port I can use it up to 90mm, which makes it even more flexible. It has proven to be one of the sharpest underwater knives in my toolbox and I highly recommend it to underwater photographers and videographers. However it’s not listed in any of the manufacturers portcharts, probably for the above mentioned reasons. I encourage everyone to give it a go. The zoom gear that you purchase for an RF15-30 with your housing brand will also fit the RF 24-105 STM.

I don't know how much stock you place in DXO data, but here is a comparison of the R5 (mk I), R8 and Sony A1, they all seem pretty close in performance to me: DXOMARKSony A1 vs Canon EOS R8 vs Canon EOS R5 | DXOMARKThe Canon 24-50 kit lens is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and there have been several posts about its relatively poor performance. As far as AF performance goes the specs say the AF sensitivity on the R5 II is -6 - 21EV while the min for the A1 is -4EV, seems close but the devil is in the details of how they measure that. Probably best to see if you find some land based reviews to see what that means in real life as there are probably not many who have shot both underwater and with blue water pelagic experience. You could also ask a question on the forum about settings people use for sharks/whales in lower light on your R5 II to compare with what you do. Looking at things like AF mode - single vs continuous, various AF settings and which AF points you use etc. Also faster lenses should generally provide more light for AF assuming that AF occurs with the lens wide open. I see that the EF 28mm f1.8 and f2.8 primes are listed as working with the WACP 1B. Again on these optics there is an entrance pupil limitation, favouring slower lenses and my understanding is that this is why the range of lenses listed in the port charts is limited.

Hi, I hope for the best for you. Weather is always a issue in SA. Dived SA/Mozambique for several times. Always a lot of wind/waves/swells. Maybe you are lucky to get some great shots. Br Markus

Does the camera allow you to turn off lens corrections (in-camera) or is this one of those Canon lenses where lens correction is forced in camera? @JayceeB thanks for sharing the images. I think, the marelux 180 glass dome or their 210 acrylic will not add much volume or load and dramatically improve lens performance. I assume the freshly introduced Marelux Aquista 135D - which is Marelux‘s take on Nauticam‘s WACP lineup - will give you the highest image quality with that lens, @JayceeB . @WhoTippedMyCoW it was said that mx is launching that lens with adapters for various other housing brands, too. Worthwile watching that progression.

I fully agree that till today, the 360 cam are not ideal for the underwater use. I also have the X5 with both dive case, the normal and the Pro, but indeed none of them are really good. Actually the Pro, depending on the environment, could be even worst than the normal one due to much higher internal reflection on the dome, even if the images are more clear and sharper than with the normal one. To get the best out of them you have to handle them in a certain way, for instance by keeping the closure seam always aligned with the sun orientation, and excluding some portion of the 360 view when composing the video in post. My first time with the X5 and the Pro case, I didn't take into account the sun orientation but I was holding the camera thinking about framing and in fact, there are a lot of reflections. And I did minimize them in post, by careful framing otherwise it would have been much worst. In two weeks, I will be in Tenerife for a diving vacation and I will give it a last try to the X5 and the Pro case by trying to handle it properly and will see if it the end result will be more acceptable.

I got the Mission 1 Pro and the Inon lenses GR140 Pro and G165II. As ZD connection, I went for the Howshot because, as we know, Inon didn't release yet its own front mask for the Mission 1. But the one from Howshot is well build and it will serve the purpose well, at least until Inon will produce its own, later in the year. In two weeks, I am going to test the different setups but from what I've understood, the Mission 1 Pro seems to be very good without wet lenses, for the general shooting with underwater focus going from 50cm to 6m, which is the farthest you can go underwater anyway. Instead, the wide wet lens bring the focus closer to 10cm stopping at around 2m, maybe 2,5m, which it could create a nice cinematic look also underwater, when swimming close to reef and/or fishes. Since I am not into macro but close-up is the max I would go, I got the G165II but it seems I am the only one because I couldn't find anybody giving me a feedback on this lens. So I just have to wait two more weeks and see how this lens will perform with the Mission 1. I would expect to be somewhere in between a close-up and macro, considering what I heard about the Mission 1, so far.

The low light and metering are 2 concerns with the R5mii as well as dynamic range and hard to focus when scene is not contrasty enough. Norway with orcas is extreme lowlight conditions and I’ve seen good stuff from Sonys using wacp-c with 28mm lens so in theory the 20-50 would be ideal. With that said I know the wacp-c/1 work with 28mm so you would have to start there. For canon they may a zoom limiter for the 24-50 kit lens which blocks the 24-27 range. Also on R5mii you have a display at the bottom right corner which helps in this rare case if you do not have the limiter but it’s still annoying in a quick shot scenario. I have the wacp2 with canon rf14-35 and it sucks because vignetting and it’s honestly worked better behind a 230mm dome for me. The canon 20-50 f4 though seems like an interesting option but I still worry about the low light, metering and focusing issues when little contrast.

A few considerations on upgrading as you know the widest lens that doesn't vignette for the WACP series is 28mm so both of the 20-50 lenses would need to zoom into 28mm in operation and you can't just get there by turning the dial out you have to look to see you have got to 28mm. I could see this being an issue when trying to work quickly. Also neither 20-50 lens is on the WACP-C port charts as yet and particularly fast lenses might not work with the WACP-C, though the Sony 24-50 f2.8 is on the WACP-C port chart, but there appears to be a typo in the port chart and the line advising the zoom range is 28-50 seems to be missing. I believe they have a limit on entrance pupil size which impacts what lenses work in that system. Assuming you are looking at both lenses behind the WACP-C The WACP-1/1B includes the Sony 20-70 f4 lens, but most of the lenses for that optic are also kit lenses. What exactly is the concern with with the R-5II? I would have thought the sensor capabilities of the A1 and R5 II to be very close, Is there no option to cap maximum ISO when using auto ISO? It might be worth asking the question how Canon shooters handle blue water metering as well, could be a better option than a system switch?

Tiger @27mm. Dolphins @20mm.