All Activity

Best course of action - suck it and see. Everyone's standards are different and it would help you a lot I think to take 5 minutes of the dive to shoot a subject - even the sandy bottom at f5.6 through to 13 to give you an idea of what's possible. A flat surface is good as you're not wondering if the corner blur is due to aperture shot or if it's significantly closer to the camera.

m43 and APS-C tends to be much more forgiving than FF in relation to f-stop. The crop sensors can use wider apertures where as FF, especially high MP sensors FF, are much more finicky. Then again, it is much easier to get DoF separation with a FF. It’s all about learning the strengths and quirks of the tool and adapting to various situations.

Ps., almost forgot. Just got the MFO (mighty fine optic) a few days ago as it was back-ordered (from Backscatter). In the bag ready to take it out but waiting for the rain to stop (predicted for later today)

I think Robin D has the right idea. The 105VR lens is no slouch so one has to find its weaknesses especially those when used under water. For example see attachments. A 105VR shot done with a Nikon D800 so 36 Mpixels. One jpeg is of the whole frame. Looks decent at 1000 pixels for the web. Next shot is the upper right hand corner at 300%. I did a screen grab then converted to a jpeg to make the file size quite a bit smaller but still larger than the whole frame shot. The color fringing not evident in the whole frame image now is. One gets more of this (fringing) with out of focus high contrast edges. FYI, chromatic aberration correction was turned on (in Lightroom).

That’s for the resources, Alex! Have you made your setup files available anywhere?

Thanks Chip, I appreciate the info. Kind of what I expected from prior WWL use but that was on M43. From my limited experience with this version so far, f11-13 seems about right and I will try some shots at f8 when i get to dive it again in a week. I might try it more open, but doubt I will be happy with DOF and edges.

I agree, they seem to be with different focus point - lower right quarters show that. Or they weren't and that would be a bit of a problem. Tough to say.

While I don't have a graph to share, I do have plenty of experience with the WWL-1 on a FF rig. (WWL-C will be reasonably similar). From what I've seen, f/13 or f/11 delivers edge-to-edge sharpness and high quality DoF. That said, I frequently use f/8 if I need a little more light for an image. For me personally, I find this acceptable with the exception of perhaps a wreck interior where I want high corner sharpness in an easily recognizable scene. I've been successful as wide as f/5.6 and even f/4 where center sharpness is required with now real corner detail in a blue water situation. I find DoF becomes a larger concern than corner sharpness at the wider apertures on a FF body. Remember, mileage will vary based on the specific situation and personal expectations. For me, I find the wet contact lenses offer a quality blend of zoom range and sharp images. Hope this helps.

I doubt the one testshot I made is very usefull for a fair comparisment. There is difference in composition, distance and perhaps exact point of focus. Anyway here is the centre shot, same settings, left MFO right no MFO

I'd like to see center frames. It's where usually my subject is. From what I saw so far this WCoptics degrades an image quality a little compared to bare lens. Microcontrast and shapness... the pop.

Phil, @Phil Rudin What about canon? If there is now a Marelux zoom gear for the RF24-50, it seems possible to adapt the WLL-1c? Any hint on required adaptor and port ? Will the new Aquista an alternative to the wll1? Thx.

@ColdDarkDiver Do you mind sharing what lens and dome you are using for video? (Rf 14-35 f4, 230mm ?) Thx.

No doubt in this case that the MFO increase the quality Thanks for this comparaison

on my first dive with the mfo I took a picture with and without the mfo, just to try. Free floating in drysuit in a silty lake in the Netherlands, so a little shift in position. This shot is from a 105 macro (AF-S 105mm F/2.8G IF-ED VR) in the bottom corner on fullframe DSLR. No sharpening, removal of CA etc. F16 1/60 iso 100. In the centre the difference is still there, but less noticable. Left mfo, right no mfo

This is my goto glue. Works on drysuit and wetsuits too.

Aloha and welcome Samir!

Regarding your question about swimming: that’s exactly what I’m using it for. Sperm whales and Humpbacks, dolphins, sharks. A GoPro is smaller but the WACP-C combination is a no-brainer with really good IQ

I do more freediving than scuba and really like the setup. It has a slightly negative buoyancy which I think is good. Being able to use the full zoom range helps very much. I do own the 8-15 with zen 100 minidome in parallel but I don’t think I will use that very often. https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/2372-fisheye-options-for-sony-ff/#findComment-15915

Aside from port and lens issues, if your budget can stretch to a new camera and housing, the Nauticam housing for A7CR is 1924g and A7RV is 2806g, as measured on my kitchen scales. There is a further approx 200g saving in the camera bodies. AF performance of the two is identical, although the A7RV housing rig has a few ergonomic advantages, such as placement of the playback button, plus a joystick control, and a few more custom buttons. Design is clamshell vs removable back.

Agreed, but A7RV as tested; also A7CR. Maybe the MFO needs the A1!

Thank you, this forum is great, you have given me a lot to think about, I will take a closer look at my photos and see how much am I zooming since full fisheye may be too much field of view. Thanks also for the o ring tip never thought of that.

You could probably use an o-ring or gasket to seal bubble-free water between your WWL-1B and port glass. I know people who used an o-ring in this way with the WWL-1 so they could do split shots. Obviously that would only address the bubble issue, not the streamlining issue.

It is always interesting to ask the manufacturer but remember they were the ones that glued it on unsuccessfully 😃 Bill

I think you need to consider that the WWL/WACP options are not really interchangable the wider angle of the fisheye makes every thing much smaller in the frame, though your subject may not shrink much due to the barrel distortion. Also you need to watch corners much more closely for stray freedivers, fins etc. Your experience will help with deciding if this is going to be an issue for you. So the questions to ask is how often you zoom in from maximum view with WWL? This post compares the field of view of a 14mm rectilinear lens which is close to what you get with a WWL with a fisheye and shows the impact of zooming into a 28mm equivalent lens and a 15mm fisheye with a 2x. I can see some options. get a 140mm dome and use with a fisheye or you could consider the Laowa 10mm A WACP which would use your existing lens an adapted 8-15 fisheye with a SONY 2x which would completely replace what you have now - one system for Baja freediving and the same system on reefs, but having the advantage of full fisheye on the reefs. The last option will give a full fisheye for reefs with zoom capability for CFWA. It will be quite heavy UW which may be an issue. There's lots of posts on how this is done on this site and it gives a very flexible setup.

@fruehaufsteher2 thank you for sharing. Do you find the setup pretty easy to wield in the water? For some big animal encounters, there’s a good deal of surface swimming? Also any issues freediving with it? Thanks.