fruehaufsteher2

YES

Thanks Chris, that's exactly what I was trying to say. I've been to Moorea 2 years ago and had the RX100VA with me. Nice quality and minimal drag. But when I see what I can get out of the images from the full-frame camera in post-processing, I'm sad that I didn't have a big camera with me back then. You rarely get really close to the big animals (and you shouldn't), so having the largest possible reserves in RAW is extremely important.

IMHO 121 is disappointed because with his setup and his style of taking pictures he closes the aperture nearly completely and by that loses all the advantages of the big camera. I usually have the aperture on f/7.1 - I am not a landscape photographer. The focused object has to be sharp and the background is slightly blurry. That allows to shoot in available light while freediving or using only a limited amount of flash. This wouldn’t be possible with smaller sensors.

Finally nice to have both of you onboard!

Use the OM10. if going with the whales is similar to French Polynesia, then you will be happy to have all the postprocesss abilities.

Several of the colleagues here have been blamed for being false, lying, doing something that they shouldn't do... as long as this is coming always from the same colleague the best way is to ignore. You have nothing to blame yourself for and nothing to apologise for. The picture exactly reflects your statement and there is really NOTHING in it that could be recognised as a disturbance of nature in any way.

If you, Interceptor, just could reduce using the word „you“ and reduce blaming or insulting others, your posts would be much more helpful and a win for this forum

Lit backscatter will be more prominent seen in your picture than if it is not lit by the strobe. Either use a beamformer or point outwards - at the price that you are lighting up much water and fish that can not be seen in the picture. In some instances it can be useful to open the aperture as far as possible so the backscatter between you and the object is more blurred and less disturbing in the final image.

Mattys Pics are beautiful. https://www.mattysmithphoto.com/custom-dome-ports/ But there's a discrepancy between portability and desired size. 18" are roughly 45cm, not easy to transport. For me that doesn't mean nauticam 8,5" is useless

Regarding Boyancy: Here: https://www.retra-uwt.com/pages/4th-generation-retra-flash-series are the values, but I don't know whether w/o batteries. As the volume doesn't change, you moght have to add the weight of the batteries.

Another question: Is it possible to calculate the range of sharpness with aperture closed to f/22, starting at infinity (or what over water the most distance that can be sharp) with the WACP-C …. Ok just got that I can try myself. I‘ll respond to myself later

This would add another 1,8k€ and 1,8kg … is it really that bad? But in fact I see the point.

OK, f/22 - understood. But the pic is fine. It’s only not possible to have everything sharp. But that brings me closer to understand the pure technical explanations of @Interceptor121

Hi Chip, thank you so much for your perfect answer. The acrylic dome seems to be a good option. Calculated roughly that adds up to at least 2,5k... but nevertheless much cheaper than the FCP. 8-15 (used) 600-650 Metabones 300 Dome 800 n100 - N120 675 (!) Focus gear 300 At least I knew why I put the "cheap" into quotes. So first thing will be to see what the WACP-C alone can deliver. Otherwise I now have a plan. What about the boyancy of the acrylic dome? Does it have upward drag?

Owning the WACP-C and happy. At least there is the possibility to do splitshots with the WACP-C but very limited (see below). "Thinking about" (GAS) a not-so-expensive solution to do splits. 230 dome? Acrylic? which lens? I won't use it very often. Currently owning A7IV with Nauticam N100.

AFAIK they are targeting everything that could be in professional use and not an original part of the camera. so it goes for housings, ports, flashes and the tax is 16% of the original price. The look up serial numbers and there’s no way of escaping them. They are looking for all international arrivals. One of the participants of our trip crossed the border via taxi to avoid the risk. For me this is a reason not to return to Mexico even though the landscape is really beautiful!

In both cases that I in person saw the sealing at the back door failed. But I know one case also where the vacuum-valve itself leaked.

Hi Wolfgang, fully agree: may be the expectations were to high - but boat and hotel itself would have already been a real downside even if there were more to see. But I tried to report neutral to give everybody the possibility to decide himself whether or not it is worth the risk or worth the money to try. For the border control there seems to be bad news: Even in Mexico City they are now starting to search for expensive housings, domes and lenses. It seems to get worse, not better. We were lucky: We did all the precautions (not having suitcases that look like divers) but then there‘s always the red button: After asking us whether we had alcohol or cigarettes in our suitcases the border-control-lady told my wife to hit the button. Luckily it went green.

For the seafrogs housings: I owned one and were lucky that I noticed the failure just before getting into the water, otherwise I would have flooded my A6400. At my last trip to La Paz another guy had his A7RII in a seafrogs housing and it got flooded - I personally wouldn't go with seafrogs.

Thanks for the clarification. I fully agree that if you stay always at the surface then the RX100 Va is the best option. But with respect to the fact that the TO is not only thinking about the past but also about future, it might be helpful for him also lighting up what "snorkeling" can also mean. But regarding the "drag" issue: Overrated. Flashes add much additional drag, but I can assure that the difference between Isotta RX100 + handelbar and Nauticam A7IV + WACP-C is very, very small.

From my end it is necessary to consider which type of snorkeling is meant. I myself see scuba only as a necessary and noisy tool to have the ability to stay a little longer in front of some of the creatures we all love. If freediving is also included in the whole snorkeling topic it should be clear that in the range of 0 to -12m you could have around 10 to 20 sec to take the picture and go up again. That’s the range where most of the underwater life takes place, where the colors are intense and beautiful and all that without the noise of the bubbles. But for this purpose in my opinion the TG-6 is a very minimalistic solution, especially if it comes to image quality. What helped me most was an underwater photography course with many different people and many different sizes and types of gear where you can put your hands on. For example the picture below was taken while snorkeling - but I doubt if the TG-6 would have been a appropriate gear.

That is one of the great advantages of the Sony-ecosystem: AF is great for under water, and the 28-60 + WACP-C is a really great combination. I was wanting to buy the FCP but with all the current information I have - I will not go for it. And with WACP-C and A7c or even A7 IV/RV/1 the whole system is still relatively compact compared to Z9 or Canon-solutions with domeport

I don't like the Ikelite housings but have very good experiences with the Isotta housing and RX100 VA. Very small form factor, very acceptable photo quality. Only downside is the poor battery life. Regarding wide angle the combination of UWL-95 and dome IIIG from INON is very versatile and has no limitations over the whole zoom range. But you should use the RX100 V rather than VI or VII because the newer versions do not harmonize with the UWL. In the picture below you can see my former equipment, which I sold in favour of full format. Also attached a picture with this combination, the difference in image quality to the large equipment is less than you might expect.

We were in the middle of the advertised season… of course nature isn’t fully predictable but a) it should have been stated that there’s no swimming with the big animals b) the boat was insufficient and c) there should be a plan b, at least at this price tag…

We have just returned from the "Big Animals Experience" in Baja California Sur in Mexico. To say it up front - unfortunately it was quite a disappointment for us. Perhaps simply because there was such a stark difference between expectations and reality. From the description of Bajasharkexperience by Evans Baudin https://bajasharkexperience.com/big-animal-expedition/, we read that we were looking for the big animals and then tried to get into the water with them and photograph them. In reality, however, we travelled 8 hours a day on a very small boat for $1,000 per person per day, but were actually in the water for a maximum of 90 minutes all-in-all over the 5 days. Of these, Mobulas totalled 40 minutes and the sea lion colony 30 minutes, the rest a couple of attempts to spot dolphins in the water (unsuccessful). A little more detail: The original plan was to stay in a hotel in La Paz and look for animals from there. Shortly before the start of the tour, we were informed that we would now be staying in La Ventana (but only in a 3-star hotel instead of the 4-star hotel we had previously planned). The new hotel was intended more for self-catering guests, unfortunately with large cockroaches, water not always warm - we didn't like it. The water from the tap was not completely desalinated, so it was also difficult to soak the camera. A little more detail: The original plan was to stay in a hotel in La Paz and look for animals from there. Shortly before the start of the tour, we were informed that we would now be staying in La Ventana (but only in a 3-star hotel instead of the previously planned 4-star). The reason was construction work in La Paz - Evans later told us that the reason was rather a lack of animals in La Paz. The most difficult thing for us was that our boat was too small for 8-9 people (not enough sun protection and protection from spray) and that there was no plan B at any point - we were actually travelling non-stop, almost without seeing any animals. Well - a small blue whale swam through the Baja, we never got closer than 500 metres. There was a small fin whale in the water that we got closer to. When we got within 50 metres, we were told that it was forbidden to go into the water with the whales. That was disappointing, of course, because that was the real reason why we came (besides the mobulas). If this means that "Encounter" is actually just whale spotting from a boat, then you can get this for a lot less money with a much higher chance of success elsewhere. It was also a pity that the planned two days of Mobula only led to two brief moments in the water - we had expected much, much more. Fortunately, we still managed to take a few pictures. In principle, there seems to be a chance of encountering orcas. Based on our experiences, however, I am sceptical as to whether you can realistically expect to go into the water with them. To summarise, I would not recommend the tour. I would prefer a few days of mobulas and possibly big fish as by-catch.