All Activity

The camera system and the optics are two different items and should be treated separately... #1.: Regarding the camera, Canon R5II and Sony A1 have very similar DR, at base ISO as well as at elevated ISO, e.g. see here: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-1M2 There is no improvement to expect in practice, when switching from Canon to Sony, but noise can be treated very effectively today with AI routines, e.g. in LRc. The Sony A1, as you say, is a little bit smaller compared to Canon, also with housing (the smallest FF camera with housing is the Sony A7cII (or A7CR); this may be the way to go when one intends to reduce size/weight of camera&housing). When it comes to metering and AF, I expect similar results with both cameras when the complicated menues are set to the right parameters (I only can say from own experience for Sony A7R5, which I have; metering and AF are excellent, but the menue is complicated and confusing. I needed some trial and error to get the rig configured to my needs. I also assigned several custom buttons to switch between different AF modes/areas UW (I think there is still room for improvement if I just understood the manual/menue better)) #2.: Regarding the optics, the WACP-2 is optically the best, but a monster (when zooming a little out, vignetting should not be a problem any more, provided the rigth extension is used). I only saw it once in my life and immediately knew WACP-2 is not for me. The difference in camera/housing is almost neglectible compared to the difference in size/weigth of the optics, when WACP-2 and e.g. a 140mm domeport with fisheye lens are compared... I have WACP-C with the Sony 28-60mm (many use this combo, are highly satisfied and there are similar configurations available for Canon), which is substantially smaller and lighter compared to WACP-2 (note that also the WACP-1 is clearly bigger/heavier compared to WACP-C). I do not think that for UW use f/2.8 is a big advantage compared to f/4-5.6 as one (normally) does not go below f/7 (at most f/5.6)to have sharp images also away from the center... I, personally, prefer the Canon 8-15mm, as it provides 180° diagonal compared to 130°, wich is the maximum for the WACP-C combo... The Canon 8-15mm fisheye in 140mm domeport provides not only 180° diagonal, but is also small and clever. When used with TCs, it can be used at more narrow angles of view. I only can say what combinations of 8-15mm/TCs work for Sony, but here are people posting here who use the Canon fisheye with TCs (see e.g. the post of user "WASO" in this tread here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/3095-nauticamcanon-wa-questions/page/3/#comment-26191) Alternatively one could acquire Nauticams FCP, but I doubt this solutions does any better compared to fisheye lens with TC... All the best, Wolfgang

On a related note, I've tried the MFO1 on my Lumix LX10 compact. I bought the lens for use the A7SIII / 100mm macro, but since I haven't hopped onto the new rig yet, I thought I'd give it a spin on the LX10. The test was on a bonfire dive here in Okinawa last night. My first in-water impressions were that it really helped with focusing. I shoot video in MF with focus peaking, acquiring focus with back-button focus. The number of peaking points was often almost double what I usually have (which I imagine is linked to an increase in contrast), and focus acquisition felt snappier and easier. I shot the whole 95-minute dive with it, shooting 4K video from a 36 mm equivalent to 72 mm, usually in the 50 to 60 mm range. I just checked the footage, and those impressions are confirmed. Image quality (contrast, sharpness, colours) is improved a lot compared to the naked flat port, much more than I had expected. Focusing is indeed faster too. I have some sequences of fast-moving larval fish where manual autofocus acquisition/reacquisition just snaps like it never has on the LX10. It feels like an autofocus upgrade on a camera where AF performance is dismal. Really impressed, and kind of regretting that I didn't get this months ago instead of in the last week of using the LX10 rig! It wasn't designed for this, but yes, the MFO1 does work very well on a 1-inch sensor compact! screen capture of a raw clip from last night, larval long-arm octopus (Lumix LX10 + MFO1, 4K 30fps)

My WACP-2 with my 14-35 F4 vignettes like crazy at 14 so it kind of defeats the purpose of it. It's also alot for me to handle when I have to move Tiger Sharks around on tours. I can do it but just slows me down so I am leaning towards a WACP-1. Canon just released the 20-50 F4 and its on the port chart just don't know anyone who has tested behind a WACP-C yet. The sony is smaller and has the 20-50 2.8 option which to me is a nice addition as I think it could help me in Norway when shooting orcas in extreme low light. With that being said I won't use 2.8 often if ever but also Sony has superior dynamic range unless someone can help me with my R5mii to figure out how to handle the metering and noise issues I have.

Maybe the GoPro Mission 1 Pro could be the answer? Not sure and I may not have enough experience to answer but for sure in two weeks I will be underwater with the M1P and a couple of Inon wet lens to test them and play around. Let's see what kind of footages I will bring back home, hopefully some cinematic look ones.

It seems that the new X6 is on the way: https://thenewcamera.com/insta360-x6-coming-to-usa-fcc-certification-confirmed-launch-window-tightens/ It will be interesting to see if there will be any improvement related to diving, either by new form factor/case or software.

Lightroom only applies settings like this if you configure it to do so. You probably experimented with import settings and it's been set to do Lens Corrections ever since. Fortunately it's easy to change.

I haven't been able to find a way to turn off lens correction in camera. You can turn it off in Lightroom after importing, but Lightroom defaults to applying it. I prefer lens correction on for the 20-50mm and 14-35mm, but lens correction off for the 8-15mm fisheye.

Wahrmut, Some beautiful shots! Nice! Evan

As you already have a video light, start with that and learn your way round the camera. Its an easier starting point. Or/and have a go at macro with the built in flash. TG7 has a great microscope mode, more magnification than most big cameras with a macro lens and works great with the limited capabilities of the built in flash or a video light. Its really good for slugs. The standard lens (ie, not in microsope) is good for fish portraits, again within the range of the built in flash or video. The #1 starting mistake I see is trying to take pics of things too far away, then attributing lack of success to needing more light, when the real lesson is to get closer. Then with all that out of the way and comfortable with everything you already have, upgrade to a strobe or two. That way you don't have to learn it all at once. If you want to do that one strobe at a time, you can use a white card to bounce some of the light from a single strobe back and take the edge of any hard shadows.

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 (probably) optically very good, but extremely bulky and heavy). For baited/feeded sharks a fisheye lens with (or without) Teleconverter may be also very good but much more handsome (for me, personally, WACP-C with 130° diagonal maximum would not enough for such cases)..

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