ChipBPhoto

So happy it was useful!

Hi Wolfgang, I never did find the actual reason. What I do now is pay special attention to the ribbon cable so I do not bend it sharply in anyway when connecting it to the top of the hotshot. Since I’ve been doing that, I’ve not had any issues. I have no idea if that solved the problem or is just a coincidence, but so far all is good.

Truly my pleasure! I’m sure you’ll bring back some great images to share!

Hi John, Congratulations! You are going to love the Nauticam housing. They have always done a great job of putting the buttons in the right place. Ie Playback is always with the left thumb and the shutter is always the right finger, regardless of the specific housing model. If you are a bit OCD about soaking it after each dive, articulating the buttons/levers in the soaking water, and cleaning the o-rings, it will last you for many, many years. Good call on the WACP-C. I find it to be a good all around blend for 90% of what I like to photo. I did a couple wrecks yesterday in 10-15m visibility. I was able to get both the wide as well as some very tight details. In full disclosure, there were a couple times I would have liked to have been wider, but I would have had to sacrifice the zoom I enjoyed. I have attached the Nauticam port chart for the WACP-C to review. Unfortunately, the 8-15 only works in a dome. But there’s an upside. Because of the special nature of the fisheye lens, Zen makes a 100mm dome designed specifically for the Canon 8-15. To use this, you will need either: - N100-N120 adapter II w zoom knob, the Zen 100 dome, zoom gear, EF-Sony adapter, lens OR - N100-120 adapter II w knob, 140mm dome, N120 30 extension, gear, EF-Sony adapter, lens. Note - you must get the 140 dome that has the removable shade if you want to do circular fisheye. The Zen 100 dome has a removable shade built-in. The 1st option is the smallest and a little less expensive. This should make for an easy travel set should you want the fisheye and WACP-C. The 2nd would give you slightly sharper corners, but be bigger and more costly. Either set would give you 15mm 180 fisheye and 8mm circular fisheye, but no usable zoom in between. If you are not interested in doing the circular fisheye, you can skip the zoom gear. You can add a 1.4x teleconverter to each with the appropriate zoom gear and additional extension, if you want. One other important thing I learned when I first moved to the 61mp sensor…focus is critical! The sharpness you will see if incredible, if it’s in focus. Similarly, if focus is not spot on, it will be equally noticeable. APS-C sensors are far move forgiving in this area. But when you get it right, the detail is amazing! Also, regardless of what you may hear, the WACP-C really needs to be at f/11 or f/13 if you want a deep DoF. You do have the ability to get close focus subjects sharp and shallow DoF for background separation with this FF sensor. The port is very good at allowing super close focus. Having that zoom ability will allow you to tighten up in an otherwise skittish subject. Higher resolution will give you a bit of cropping room as well. Below are 2 videos Alex Mustard did showing how he customizes his menus. The a1 and a7rV have the same menu settings. A bit more than you asked, but hopefully helpful. Again, congrats on the new kit! Let us know what you think. chip WACP-C Port Chart.pdf

Sounds good. Keep it mind it is a prime lens, so no zoom.

My pleasure! I know going through all the options can be a bit overwhelming. I’ve heard amazing stories from Socorro. It’s the place for big critters for sure! I did the Bimini hammerheads this year. I used the WACP-C and had fantastic results with the zoom range. I was able to get the distant scene at the feeding box as well as zoom out wide for the close fly overs. Yes, the water contact options replace the tradition dome. FYI - The WWL/WACP-C are the same quality and specs. The WACP-C is a dry port and the WWL-1B is a wet mount that has a bayonet mount to attach at the end of the 45 port. You need to “burp” the WWL once in the water to make sure there is no air trapped between them. It is, however, a bit smaller and slightly cheaper than the WACP-C. WWL-1B - 28-60, zoom gear, Port 45, bayonet mount, and WWL-1B. WACP-C - 28-60, zoom gear, N100 30mm extension, WACP-C (Obviously double check me with your dealer) Many people feel the water contact options do improve image quality at the same or slightly more open aperture as a dome port. Splits, however, are only possible with a dome.

I’ve been a long time Canon user and now Sony. In overall usability, the 2 big things I seen are: - Canon colors are legendary. Yes, you can alter in post, but I like them as a staring point. - Sony has better tracking. Canon is not bad, Sony is just stronger. APS-C is a terrific format, especially for size. Either would be relatively the same, float arms perhaps making a difference. Yes, Tokina 10-17 works with the a6700. I too use a Sigma MC-11 as the adapter. The N85-N120 covers the adapter depth. Add the Zen N120 100mm mini dome for Tokina, a zoom gear, and you are set. The same N85-N120 and Sigma will work with the Sigma or Canon EF 100. As far as I know, both are about the same in overall user experiences, aside from the comparison I shared above. Also keep in mind the button configuration in a housing will be completely different that the body alone for land photos. Either will require the same learning curve of new button placement in the housing. With that said, Nauticam has done a fantastic job of making logical sense of how their buttons are positioned. Between the 2, it’s mostly personal preference. Good luck and let us know what you do! chip

Hi John, Welcome to the Nauticam family! Yes, I definitely have experience I can share. First question is what “look” do you personally like/want? - Fisheye is ultra wide with a 180 degree angle of view. (AoV) Great for super wide scenes and/or Close Focus Wide Angle (CFWA). There is a distinctive fisheye look that will make the center of the image look closer and the edges further away, with some barrel distortion. The Canon 8-15 lens is really either a circular 8mm fisheye or 15mm fisheye. There is no real usable zoom range in between unless you add a teleconverter. A small 140 dome works very well with this lens. - Rectilinear, or more traditional lenses such as a 16-35, will give a wide field of view, but much less than a fisheye. They will require a dome port. Also be sure the particular lens can close focus so it will be useful uw. The new Loawa 10 lens has a 130 AoV and seems to work well in either a 180 or 230 dome. Not many people I know use the 12-24. These are often used at f/13 or higher to get sharp corners. Split images basically require a dome of some sort. - Water Contact lenses, such as the WACP/WWL are a relatively new technology that basically puts water correcting contact lenses on an average kit lens such as the Sony 28-60. (The 28-70 is an older lens and most prefer the image quality of the newer 28-60) In addition to creating very sharp images, the WACP/WWL solutions also give a wide 130-69 degree AoV which is a longer zoom solution with quality at all lengths. This can be helpful especially with big animals. There can be a hint of barrel distortion as a slight trade off for the wide zoom flexibility. They are also famous for the ability to focus extremely close to a subject, as in “almost touching a starfish leg and still being able to focus” close. Bear in mind there will be many personal opinions that will be portrayed as the “best” as if it is fact. It is up to your personal taste and what you want. Many prefer the dependability of standard domes. Others like the zoom flexibility and easy port solution of water contact lenses. Both are right for the right situation. For me personally, I have been mostly a fisheye and macro photog. I have the Canon 8-15 and it has worked well. With that said, I actually prefer the water contact option. The zoom flexibility of wide, CFWA, and incredibly close focus ability fit my needs nicely. I did a wreck dive today where I was able to capture expansive bow images as well as zoom in for shark passes. The WWL-1B and WACP-C are basically the same high image quality. The WACP-1 is substantially larger, heavier, and more costly, but does have truly fantastic results. As far as macro, the Sony 90 is extremely sharp and fast focus on the a7rV. (Quite slow focus on older bodies) That’s an easy one to select. Once you answer which of the 3 types of looks you want from above, that will help point you to the best option for you. In short, there’s no wrong answer today, so long as you get a lens that close focus and pair it with the correct port. Good luck in your new rig! Always happy to help. chip

I absolutely agree with this, especially after experiencing it first hand. I recently tried to use the Retra LSD w my Z-330. Despite a most meticulous effort to correctly aim the focus beam, the design simply does not deliver a reliable result. The misses were substantial. And this was in extremely calm, shallow conditions where I could make multiple attempts on the same subject. While I too am starting my snoot journey, I have already learned how an accurate aiming light is critical to successful results. My next attempt is the Backscatter MF-2 with snoot, a solution about which I hear many positive reports.

Hi all, I am looking for a gently used Retra LSD snoot, specifically for the Inon Z-330. I am located in South Florida. Thanks! Chip

Hi @hedonist222 - congratulations! I did this exact move last year. You will see a huge improvement in your user experience, especially around the Sony 90 macro performance and AF abilities in general. Your list is very comprehensive. Well done! The Turtle trigger works fine. I use an UW Technics trigger, but basically the same idea. The basic Nauticam manual trigger will also work, but it does not support HSS that you may want in the future. The Nauticam housings have built-in threaded connection points for the fiber cable to screw on top of the housing. Either the new Nauticam or Backscatter universal cables have the correct female connectors to attach to both the housing and MF-1. If you are going to focus on macro, many people find the Nauticam 45° 1:0.8 Viewfinder to be very useful. This allows you to look down into the viewfinder so your rig can be more easily placed on the bottom for those great eye-to-eye pics of the smaller critters. This can be added later if you choose. As a heads up, the SMC-1 is a terrific tool and makes incredibly high-quality images. I use it with the flip holder and find it works well. With that said, there is a steep learning curve to it due to the close distance to the subject required and thin focus plane. I would suggest getting very comfortable with the Sony 90 alone before you add to your tool kit. The SMC-2 is an entirely new level of extreme frustration due to its almost microscopically thin focus plane. Most would agree the 45 degree viewfinder would be a more useful tool from day one. Best of luck with your new rig!

Agreed, this would be an interesting comparison. Over the coming months we will see how this new addition actually performs.

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.