All Activity

Not yet, I wanted to go this past weekend, but unfortunately I had obligations. I think I can try next weekend.

If you're doing photography, this is a good place to start, especially if you're new to Panasonic camera: https://youtu.be/VeUwbzj2i6U?si=lg1pemaN6bAObKKM I only shoot video, but I'm torn between the Canon V1 and the L10 at the moment mainly because the L10 Nauticam system gets expensive.

"I think, the marelux 180 glass dome or their 210 acrylic will not add much volume or load and dramatically improve lens performance." @Adventurer I'm considering the 180mm. I haven't had great luck with larger acrylic domes, as the ones I've used require weight to keep them from nosing up. "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," @Adventurer . For me, the improvement in image quality would need to be significant to justify the cost and heavier weight (for shore diving) of the Aquista 135D. A little out of my budget for testing purposes. I'm interested to see the results though, once someone is able to test and report back.

Thanks! As I already wrote above, I had forgotten several times that I don't get the one-stop smaller aperture displayed and therefore accidentally stopped down by one stop too much.

I like the crab shot. But did you really have to go for F22 ? Wouldn’t F16 Have been sufficient ? And I am asking myself if F22 is the EXIF Aperture in the file or manually computed by you ( F16 * 1.4x converter = F22 ) ?

Thanks Evan!

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.