ChipBPhoto

Domes are an excellent option with an extensive track record of success. If DoF is a higher priority, and versatility is not a top desire, I would agree a traditional fisheye/dome or WACP could be a better solution. I personally prefer to have a sharper subject with a softer background for separation in my CFWA. For me, versatility tends to be a top priority which could make the FCP a solid overall choice for the type of images I like to create. While I do not have the talent of Alex, the images he shared do show the quality the lens is capable of producing in a variety of settings. They're all different tools and it's a matter of balancing the desired usage and output priorities. Time will tell how this new wet lens fairs in the wild.

I had a chance to play with an FCP yesterday at Reef Photo. While not uw, I did see first hand how the zoom range is very impressive. Its overall size/weight was not as bad as I expected. It definitely felt lighter and more manageable to me than the WACP-1, while a bit larger than the WACP-C. The weight and mass does sit closer to the housing than a traditional large dome solution which should yield a reasonably balanced feel in water. I would agree there is a trade off of depth of field to achieve the unprecedented zoom. I can see how this will be a very solid option to capture a wide variety of subjects ranging from fisheye to CFWA to zoomed details in a single dive. If only 1 lens/port would go on a trip, I can see how the FCP will appeal to many. Is it for everyone? No. Then again, nothing is. In a generalization, this is my opinion of how the port options play: FCP - I believe it is a high-quality tool with an emphasis on versatility. Those that want a 1-port, ultra-wide solution will most likely be happy with the choice. This versatility does come with a higher cost to purchase. WACP-1 - Those who want the ability to have noticeably improved sharpness at more open apertures will most likely prefer the WACP. The in-water mass and resulting stability could appeal to pro video creators using FF systems. WACP-C/WWL - Similar idea of the WACP, with a smaller size. It may require a more narrow aperture for large DoF. DOMEs - Those who have and enjoy the more traditional domes may wish to stay with their current system. Nothing at all wrong with that. Also the best solution for splits. As with everything, check it out for yourself and decide what best fits your personal needs.

Great, so glad it helped! If using a Nauticam housing: 32212 - Straight 180 40° / 0.8:1 viewfinder 32214 - 45 degree Angle Viewfinder 40° / 0.8:1 If other brand of housing, double check with the dealer that you are using a viewfinder that can accommodate the new larger built-in EVF on either body.

No worries at all. I did not take it as anything but a very fair point. I was just sharing we can all pick out the pieces that best resonate with each of us. My apologies if it came across any other way. Please keep sharing the good feedback and opinions, and of course the great images!

@vkalia - terrific image! I agree this is interesting information, and certainly a very deep dive. There are some who prefer to dig into the micro details, while others are more visually influenced by the results, or motivated more by cost, availability, or what others in their local group use. It is somewhat like those that like to pixel peep and those that enjoy an image in its entirety. The beauty of this tread is we can take from it that which is important to us personally. We are fortunate to now have so many different pieces of quality gear from which to choose, and different voices to share information.

Hi @hedonist222 - nice find and image! A focal plane can be thought of as a percentage of distance depth in the entire scene. In short, the smaller the overall scene being photographed, the smaller the distance in focus, or thinner the focal plane. The thinner the focal plane, the smaller the aperture required for depth of field sharpness. Typically we use a macro lens to make a tiny creature or detail fill the sensor. This reduces the overall scene size and greatly reduces the depth of the focal plane due to less physical distance from the front to back of the scene. When shrinking the overall scene even further via diopters or super macro lenses, the distance in the focal plane decrease even more quickly requiring a much smaller aperture to compensate. As an example, a wide reefscape or wreck can easily be photographed at f/11 or f/13 with DoF basically to infinity. This is because it is a very large scene with a relatively large difference in the focal plane distances. Details in the far distance naturally fall out of our eyes ability to see which makes the focus falloff appear normal. A small macro scene, however, will often require a minimum of f/16 to achieve a deep enough DoF that looks natural to our eyes. This also results in out of focus areas being much more easily seen, again due to the thin focal planes. The addition of a super macro tool further shrinks the scene thus requiring f/22, or beyond. (Obviously different apertures for creative desires). Due to the thin focal plane, the angle and positioning of the camera becomes equally critical. If you wanted both eyes to be in focus in your example, another solution is to rotate the camera slightly so both eyes are on the same ultra thin focal plane. An environment based on mm’s of distance is what makes macro, especially super macro, such a challenging and rewarding type of uw photography.

Interesting question. With the increasing power of LR Mobile, I do much of my edits on my iPad Pro (2022). The Apple Pencil is useful for fine details. This is very similar to using a tablet for editing. Once the major edits are complete, I will then return to my MacBook Pro/monitor for any plugin needs or PS that is not available via PS iPad. Due to the cloud features of LR, edits are synced between devices within my account. It is important to watch the histogram and have the iPad screen brightness set correctly for proper brightness, etc. I especially love the portability with this strategy to allow editing virtually anywhere.

This has been some really great information on HSS at a deep level. Super valuable! Perhaps a separate HSS thread could be posted so others can learn from it as well. @hedonist222 To your original question, either the a7rV or a1 would be an excellent choice. Either the native 1/250 or 1/400 shutter will allow you to make some wonderful black background macro images. HSS is a tool to fill in additional needs that is now available on both cameras. **That is so long as you have the appropriate flash trigger and strobes.** Something to consider in your selection process and overall cost consideration. Unless your new camera will be exclusively used for uw, I’d encourage that you also look at the body overall and choose the one that will best fit your personal needs. From first hand experience, it is honestly a tough choice between two such capable and amazing bodies.

Since it’s been a few months, here are the links to Alex’s reviews of the FCP and comparing it to the WACPs. Thought it would be useful to add to all the great experiences and comments we are getting.

@humu9679 Perfectly said! I had a the exact same choice between the a1 and a7rV. I personally opted for the a1 due to also having the ability to fire the flash at up to 1/200 using the electronic shutter in place of the manual. I have been happy with the a1, but after using for over a year I will say the performance of the rV is basically on par. Both cameras have given new life the Sony 90 macro, which will now focus at a normal macro lens speed with either body. Another consideration is if a newer flash trigger (such as the UW Techics or others) is used with strobes that are capable of HSS (High Speed Sync), the 1/250 vs 1/400 question becomes moot. Either body with the right trigger and strobes will go up 1/1000 and beyond. (Some have reported 1/2000 usage) More and more strobes, such as the MF-2, are including HSS as a standard feature. I will say that when used as a land camera, the a7rV does have a very unique screen hinge and movement which allows unusual images such as low verticals to be made much easier. The focus on wildlife and people is also very fast and accurate with the addition of some upgraded AI capabilities the a1 does not include. It also has 61MP vs the a1 50MP. I have found the extra MPs of the Sony “r” series (a7rV) is useful if you need to crop a bit, but do not want to loose the ability to print large images. Most of us do not change bodies/housings very often, so I understand it is a big decision. If you like the rV, the $1100 difference could either be a nice savings or used towards newer strobes (MF-2 as example) that include HSS. With that said, the a1 is an amazing camera as well. No one should tell you which you “should” buy, but hopefully this has added a few more pieces for consideration. Last thing, if you decide to add an external viewfinder, be sure to get the new model that works with the larger EVF in either body. Side note, speaking as a long-time Canon user, be prepared for the images to have a different color than you’re used to seeing and editing. The “Canon colors” are legendary, especially for their warmth. Sony is still fantastic, but it took me a while to get comfortable with the color look and feel of the Sony raws. Best of luck! Let us know what you pick.

Very nice!

Thanks so much for your feedback and examples! It's good to hear you are happy with it overall. Sounds like a great trip! I will try to convince my bank account that it needs to step up its game to keep up with my serious case of YOLO! But what happens if you have both YOLO and FOMA (Fear of Mission Anything), or does one feed the other??!? Not that I would admit to having either... 🤣

I too look forward to hearing more first-hand accounts. Until then, this may answer a bit of the questions: Sony 28-60 as an example: - WACP-C/WWL-1: Angle of View 130-69 degrees - FCP-1: Angle of View 170-74 degrees On paper the FCP covers a wider beginning at 170 degrees and zooms to a similar 74 degrees. Other lenses on other systems may vary, including up to a full 180 degrees with a 14mm lens and the shade removed. Having played with one yesterday, I can report the physical size comparison is substantially larger/heavier than the WWL or WACP-C. It is roughly the same overall size as the WACP-1. If travel size/weight are considerations, this may be a factor. As with the WACP-1/C and WWL, a standard larger dome is still a better choice. As a side note, the shade is super easy to remove/replace underwater should a circular fisheye be desired, with the right lens.

Canon designed the connections so that their TCs would only work with certain longer Canon lenses. These include longer prime lenses such as the EF 135 and beyond, and longer zoom lenses such as 70-200 and 100-400. Their TCs are not compatible with any 3rd party lenses. Kenko is the go-to TC option for Canon glass. One would need to decide if the possible trade off of slight reduction in IQ is worth the zoom flexibility gains.

Love the super small foot print! Reminds me of my G11 rig. Even with a pair of S-2000s it was tiny. Easy to transport; easy to use. Seems I’ve gone waaaaaay the other direction. 😳😂 There are days “less is more” really speaks to me. Great pics!

Nice frames @dhaas ! Bali is still on my list. What system did you use and how did you like it?

Correct. Without a TC the 8-15 basically becomes either a circular 8mm fisheye OR 15mm ultra-wide on a FF system. The TC allows it to become basically a 12-21mm zoom in FF. In the TC scenario I personally would lean more towards the WWL option for even greater flexibility. Absolutely! I agree that going from a DX fisheye to a DX 10-24 is a huge difference! Bear in mind the 10-24 has a AoV of 109 on the wide end vs 180 on the fisheye. Similarly, the 21 degrees difference in what you see at 109 with the 10-24 vs a WWL 130 is pretty substantial. While all are considered “wide” lenses, there is a difference between 180, 130, and 109 AoV for a wide lens. (Sorry to throw in so many numbers) It comes down to how wide do you want, and what final image outcome, usage versatility, etc. do you personally want.

Thanks for asking some really good questions! Fisheye vs WWL: The short answer is they are simply different tools. As said, the fisheye allows the user to be extra close to a large subject such as a wreck, large coral structure, or school of fish. The potential downside is one must be very close to fill the frame due to the ultra-wide 180 angle of view. As an example, I had a shark literally bump my fisheye dome and the resulting image made the shark appear to be a distance away. This is both good and bad, depending on the desired results. There is also the “fisheye” effect in the image, or a naturally occurring distortion. Straight lines, especially on the edges, will tend to bow outward. This effect can also emphasize the subject to gain more attention by making it appear closer while the edges appear further away. That is part of the charm of a fisheye. The WWL-1 with a 130 AoV allows the frame to be filled in most scenes, plus gives a longer zoom range than most fisheye options. Prior to water contact lenses, to get a true 130 AoV one would need to use something like a 10mm lens and typically a large dome on a FF system with very limited or no zoom ability. The WWL not only converts an inexpensive 28-60 lens to a 130 AoV, but also substantially sharpens it for uw use in a typically smaller package. It is a game changer in providing more options. With all that said, it really comes down to which “tool” best fits your needs and the desired perspective. I still have my Canon 8-15 and 140 dome for dives when I want an ultra-wide view. This was useful when I photo’s large coral off the walls of Cayman and entire wrecks. My personal go-to, however, is the WWL-1B (or WACP-C for a dry port-no burping). This system allows me to photo the widest range of subjects, including wrecks, fish schools, CFWA, and tiny subjects that will allow me to put the port right next to them. (Flamingo tongue, hermit crabs, etc.). It comes down to what fits your personal needs and diving style. Canon vs Nikon 8-15: I have always been a Canon user, so this was a natural switch for me. I am told the Canon design is sharper than the comparable Nikon 8-15, but there may be others that have different thoughts.

Your Canon 5D is an FF body with the EF mount. Unfortunately, Canon never had a good medium macro lens similar to the Nikon 60. There was a Canon EF 50 f/2.5 macro, but it is discontinued. Additionally, it was a slower focus. The most popular EF uw lenses I have seen were: - 16-35 for wide - 17-40 for wide at a lower price point - 24-70 - 100 L f/2.8 macro - 8-15 fisheye - Sigma 70 macro (possibly, don’t know focus speed) Here is an article Reef Photo published with some recommendations for the EF system. https://reefphoto.com/blogs/photography/canon-ef-mount-lens-recommendations It may also be worth while comparing against a newer body/lens as well. Unless you specifically want FF, there are some solid APS-C body/lens combos as well.

Crazy, isn’t it?!? 😳 😂

According to Phil’s testing, it works well behind an 8” or 180 dome. Search this site and you should find his review on it. Here are some comments from Phil on the Sony 20-70 and Tamron 17-50: Regarding the Sony FE 20-70mm F/4 Nauticam recommend the 250mm port for best results and with the Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 Nauticam recommends the 180mm for best results. While I have not run tests with the Nauticam 250mm port I have used the 20-70 with 230mm and 180mm ports. As you would expect at 20mm the corners become a bit soft V. larger ports but for me it was not a deal breaker because I was using the lens more often in the 50 to 70mm range while using the 17-28mm in the 180mm port for wider shots. My port extension lengths vary when testing with My Marelux A1 and A7R V housings but the 180mm and 230mm ports sizes remain the same. I also use a 12 inch (305mm) port for surface and split shots so have a very good idea how the 17-28 works in a very large port. For someone already shooting the Sony 20-70mm in the 170/180mm dome you may also want to consider the Tamron 17-50 for a better range or the stellar Sigma 17mm F/4 which I have used in both the 180mm and 140mm ports with excellent results. While I like the versatile of a 17 to 28/50 the Sigma 17mm prime is excellent because it will focus to 1:3.8 at 12cm (4.7 inches) this is closer than Tamron 17-28mm or Tamron 17-50mm which both focus to 19cm on the wide end of the lens.

The Canon EF-S 60 is a reasonably fast focus with the a7rV and a1, but there is significant vignetting on a FF for anything other than blackwater. It would not be my choice for daylight photos. While I have not tried it, the Sony 50 macro should work reasonably well for subjects that do not need high-speed focus. The reason it is not a desired choice for blackwater is due to the slower focus hunt speed. Phil Rudin has found very good success with the Sony 20-70 f/4 lens. It appears to have a sharp focus and performs well underwater due to its close focus capability of 9”. It also works well above water, if needed. It is not, however, a macro. If macro is desired, the options are limited. Non-macro has more choices, provided they are capable of close-focus.

Hi @Kraken de Mabini We are happy to offer suggestions, but it depends on the type of photography or subjects you wish to capture. Also, is budget a key consideration? Please share a few more details so we can share the best suggestions.

Excellent; happy to help! I tried the lens without a port and did not see much different much difference in the vignetting. Most seems to be related to the FF sensor vs the APS-C lens coverage. Please let us know what you think of it.

This once again demonstrates the “right system” is a personal opinion and choice to that person. That’s why I used my Canon T2i APS-C underwater for 11 years. It did all I wanted it to do, and I was quite happy with the results, travel size, etc. I used compact flash, film, and SVHS-C with tape-to-tape editing for video underwater prior to that, and enjoyed those experiences as well. In 2020 I upgraded to my first Sony FF with a Nauticam water contact lens and have enjoyed the experience even more. I have made several other upgrades since then, but does that mean what I chose is for everyone or everyone “should” or “should not” buy what I did? Absolutely not. It simply means it has been a success and enjoyment for me and how I dive. With that said, there are certainly days I miss the smaller and cheaper APS-C format. I, like us all, am always happy to share my experiences, good and bad, with others that ask in their personal decision process. Personal experiences are not, however, “facts” that others should follow. They are simply personal opinions based on that user’s subjective results and/or methodology. All the numbers in the world do not prove or disprove what someone should buy. The questions around FF/APS-C/m43, best brand, lens, strobes, etc. are all subjective to what best fits an individual’s needs, budget, etc. When I’m on a boat I often encourage those with GoPros, TG-6s, etc. that they can do so much with what they have, and to enjoy the experience. I enjoy hearing the experiences from others. If the system someone uses and enjoys works for them, that is their right system for that moment. It is good that we have such a forum to share information surrounding such a subjective subject.