ColdDarkDiver

Is that because you are trying to use the 8-15 and in the end you would need 35mm of extension with a 20mm nauticam and the 15mm minimum Marelux extension - so 5mm over? I also have been using the Marelux R5 housing for a couple years. I have been very happy with everything I have gotten from Marelux. I have used Nauticam housings but not their mirorless or dSLR only a couple of iterations of Point and Shoot. I don't see a difference in quality between the two companies. I like the Nauticam wet optics, but you can use most if not all of those on Marelux housings. I haven't changed the batteries in my optical trigger after 2 years... it is the most reliable one I have ever used and is nice and bright - fires strobes wonderfully. That is too bad about the viewfinder as that is some significant investment to have to swap away from. Good luck finding the right housing brand.

I don't argue with the annoyance - but the GoPro batteries are so cost effective compared to any other camera batteries, I often just pick up two new ones before each trip. At 40 dollars for 2, it is not worth not having fresh chemistry. That is US pricing though and I know that different countries get a much larger price tag for many items. However, Ya... annoying to have to pick up a new charger and batteries, I do agree.

I don't think so and Marelux already announced a specific housing for the R5 ii so I think Backscatter just got an early housing. The video doesn't look strikingly better than the R5. Also - Dpreview released both of their studio scenes (stills and video). As this is the video thread: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4207856702/canon-eos-r5-ii-video-detail-levels-impress Compared to the R5 HQ or 8k, I can't see a difference. The Stills comparison looks sharper in the R5ii than the R5, but I have never looked at an image from my R5 and been like "I wish that was sharper", except when I (lens/shutter speed/dome/etc) made it less sharp. For fun - on the video comparison, compare the R5 ii to the R6ii at 4k 60p.

I've shot video extensively with the 14-35 L and have used it frequently at 14mm. What I really run into isn't the problem with pincushion distortion but depth of field. I want the back ground in focus and that means I either need to use a really small aperture or be slightly farther away from my main subject. Often that works out OK but then I find the corners distracting as they appear blurry and in a way that looks more like a mistake than an artistic choice. Zooming in just a weee bit (like to 16mm) means that I find it easier to compose and not find the depth of field distracting from the image I like to create. Most of this was shot at 14mm: The exception to the 14mm was the ctenaphone (which was shot with a gopro...). You can see what I mean with the shot of the baby fish hanging out on the plates of ice. It looks like my focus was way off, but really the bottom of the frame was super close and out of the depth of field meaning I was not happy with the shot. I've tried dialing this in using manual focus and focus peaking but it just never comes together perfectly in my opinion (hence me starting the fisheye thread) whereas it is a bit easier at 16mm because the subjects at the bottom are just farther away from the dome. (This was shot through a 230mm dome, FYI)

I just use a North Face Base Camp XXL duffel and then inside it I put a Cinebag XL Grouper bag that gets all the camera bits and bobs (float arms, battery chargers) and anything I want more protected (reg setup/ couple masks). Plenty of room for fins and the rest of the stuff needed, plus clothes etc. next to the Cinbags which can be fully stuffed and still fit in the duffel. I think the system is a good balance of weight vs ruggedness. Then I use the Cinbags on site to move the camera around to the location, etc. Like the OP, housing and all the rest of the stuff goes in my carry on. I do like wheeled duffels and bags, but tend to go through them pretty quick or the initial weight is enough that I easily clear the max weight for the bags.

Thank you Davide - all great points. Definitely not the lens for a shark dive. Or maybe an important point is that if using it on a dive like that (or if you stumble across a shark or turtle) - adding a heavy in-camera crop can make it a usable option for that dive. While not shown here, I also have a few shots of divers working underwater as well as very close and pan shots and with the heavy in camera crop the edges moving out of the frame were not distracting. As pointed out, this removes a lot of the fisheye effect but still results in a pleasing image by reducing the alienating impact when objects move out of the frame. Happy to share if people are interested. That is also a great point about the Nauticam options and their mild fisheye effect. The fisheye still won't be my go-to lens for video for all the points you (and Chris) bring up, but I won't avoid it either. Well... maybe I will avoid it for gunbarrel shots on a wreck 🙂.

Thanks Chris for all your input in your post. I shoot at 15mm, full frame (but with the mentioned crop). My 8-15mm is just taped at that setting and I don't use TC. My love of the fisheye is really its ability to be sharp across the frame at a reasonable fstop and a small dome. I love it for its CFWA and how it gets a subject to stand out as well (aka the role of a fisheye), too but in some cases that is secondary. Less important (to me) is the field of view as I find that 14 or 16mm rectilinear is more then sufficient. For others that is different which makes you comments very meaningful and appreciated to the discusion. Thank you for the points on the 180 as well - I can imagine some fun youtube clips shot that way with a static camera but can't image that in a documentary. I may have to try it at some point though. Actually - I guess I did using a 360cam and some of the post processing. Not quite the same but an interesting affect - as an example, that starts at 8-14 sec in the following video: It was fun but clearly not an everyday shot.

Thanks for the comments John. The northshore of the island was hit the worst by far and there are pockets of healthy reef that some how missed the COTS outbreak. Thankfully there are still some pockets or what appears to be largely untouched reef on the island and the COTS are far less abundant than they were a few months ago. As for the 60p not necessary for smooth footage with enhanced stabilization, I still edited out some bits that looked pretty bad and would have needed some slow down to make up for my poor camera holding. Having said that, this camera looks best at 4k - 30p and I have definitely shot that when I can't use 125/s shutter speed due to lighting and so anything that helps is welcome - including the stabilization.

I have often been wondering about shooting video using a fisheye, and haven’t seen much about it. I have, maybe mistakenly, kept video to rectilinear lenses. I decided to give it a try, in part because I went on a trip with only the Canon 8-15mm L lens and my 140mm port (Marelux housing, R5, 30mm extension … and no video lights cause I wasn’t planning on shooting video on this trip). I used two setting – one using enhanced stabilization mode (which I think is 1.5xcrop but it is not listed anywhere that I can find) and another using the full frame but digital stabilization (like 1.2 crop). All 4k 60p w/ mild color grading (ambient white balance, no lights). Here is the enhanced stabilization shot (1.5 crop? at 24m depth) : And here is the standard digital stabilization (~1.2 crop? at 19m depth): Other than the curved horizon in the 1.2 crop, I actually don’t find the fisheye distracting. With the enhanced stabilization, I don't eve see a distracting horizon. I won’t avoid shooting video with this combination again – although next time I will bring lights…. I do really love traveling with a 140 dome rather than a 230. Do others shoot video with a fisheye? Or do most stick to rectilinear? PS - The subject is largely sad – a reef that experienced repeated bleaching events followed by a crown of thorns outbreak leading to massive coral loss. While the bleaching is likely to continue, it hadn’t extended this deep until the COTS really knocked everything else out. A similar event happened in 2010 (not bleaching but hurricane and COTS) and it recovered in 10 years and got back up to 70% living corals – hopefully this recovery happens again.

I'm not really sure how a thread about the Canon R5 II ended up being a Sony vs Canon lens thread... but I wanted to agree and emphasize this statement. Owning just about every Canon lens discussed in this thread (except the 15-35 F/2.8 L IS and the 10-20), the lens I take almost exclusively is the 8-15 without teleconverter. Cristal sharp, small port, easy to travel with. I may play with a teleconverter at some point, but I like just shooting it as a 15mm Fish Prime. And thanks Adventurer for the recommendation of the RF 15-30mm - I keep that as a backup but I will now put it through the paces underwater to see if I like it better than the 14-35. I tend to like L- color more than corner sharpness, but haven't played with it enough to really see if the non-L loses anything when it comes to realized images.

Thank you for doing this comparison! I have been interested in this topic, as Nauticam originally had the 50mm as the correct extension for this lens and then moved it to 40 after a couple months. Marelux has it at 50 + their 180 dome - which is what I have been shooting (it doesn't vignette at 14) but was wondering whether I would be better off with using a 40mm instead, following Nauticam's chart. Sounds like 50 is the right way to go. Appreciate the effort!

I have not read that, and instead it seems a group of people that it works for and those that it doesn't work ideally. Alex M had a not great experience with it and was told that he needed a new version and updated firmware - that is where my hesitance comes from. I also know many many people adapt this to Sony with great results. Shrug. I guess my point was that behind a dome, both cameras have superb options where the choice should be the body, size, performance etc. I, personally, adapt within a brand (as the RF mount has a different space between the sensor and mount requiring the ef-rf adaptor) but not across brand (convering signal) making Sony's lack of native fisheye a decision point for me. However, the wonderful optics of nauticam really pushed the option to make Sony's options superb, and many routinely use the Canon 8-15 on the Sony system. Because of the lens choices, either ecosystem - including the R5II - are amazingly capable. Personally, I am really looking forward to comparisons between the R5II and the R6II for 4k 60p. I have switched to the R6ii for most of my video as the quality is really great - even better than the R5 - and the body is cheaper.

The other place that Canon comes out ahead of Sony is the native fisheye, which is a must have for stills shooting. Plus the RF14-35L will work with the FCP, although in limited zoom (or without the hood). This is a video thread, so the fisheye and FCP is less relevant, but for hybrid shooters - a key decision point. I don't think it is a lens decision between Sony and Canon but lenses that work with Nauticam optics, that makes the Sony's have a potential advantage. Anything behind a dome (not a WACP or a WWL), I don't see any advantage to Sony with what is on the market. I was hoping for more with the R5 ii for underwater video. 8k 60p is pretty much the only interesting part but not enough to make me want to buy it and a new housing for it.

It will be interesting if anyone makes a housing for it. I don't think the C70 housings have been a real winner (I notice it is no longer on the Nauticam website) even though the footage from them is remarkable. Now that Nikon owns Red, things may shift around in the Cine market and this may play a role in it.

Thank you for this! I find my biggest gripe with the gopro housings is hitting the "shutter" button with thick gloves on. I hadn't seen that Trigger rod shutter before - definitely gonna pick one up.