ColdDarkDiver

The video is not as obviously bad if viewed on a small screen or a corner of a browsing window. It still does not focus close at all and there does seem to be a certain distance that it is able to get a sharper image. When the stitching is off it is just as if not more obvious and in that case it is sort of like two 180 cameras some of the time, and 1 360 cam another time and you don't know until you download the footage at the end of the dive.

To hopefully help people see what normal quality looks like from the X5 and non-pro video housing here are some screenshots. They look fine if viewed on a phone but as soon as one starts to look in closer, they are just very soft and really obvious stitching depending on the sun angle... and maybe if there is something close for it to focus on? Not sure as there didn't seem to be a rhyme or reason. These were shot on pure video. It could also be that my particular camera was not having a good day as it did fry itself half way through the dive (Insta360 did replace it without hesitation, although that was after I returned from the trip). This is the best of (and we do large scale experiments on the seafloor to understand the impact of nutrient polution and fishing on coral reef ecosystems - those are the cages you are seeing in some of the images): I uploaded these at full size so you can see how it looks. That is the best one. Here you can see what it looks like when close to things. A non-smooth stitch that would sometimes happen. And how it sometimes looks with the 'invisible' stick. @RomiK - I hope you don't mind me adding these as further examples to your threads. I do like the story telling in your video. You can see in all of the 360 promo videos that they play with the 360 aspect by zooming around (which is really fun) but also masks the soft nature of the camera in the housing itself. Hope this sets expectations correctly for anyone who may be purchasing this camera and housing.

I just ordered one and will let everyone know how it goes. The dome I have for the GoPro Max is giant and scratches at a sideways glance -so if this works it is still a better option. I am still annoyed that Insta360 would even produce the non-Pro version - or maybe that is for above water only... in reality. As an FYI - 14 day lead time for shipment of the new housing for the insta360 X5.

I really appreciate this information! Just wanted to clarity that the flotation would lead to some vignette? Or that the lens itself would vignette images. Secondly, did you find that you could shoot at a lower (wider) aperture and still get the images you were after? One of the compelling components of wet lenses (or WACP) is ability to capture more light while keeping acceptable corner sharpness and would appreciate your take on whether this allows a stop or 2 more light to be harnessed.

Along with Canon and Nikon both announcing video-focused cameras, Red announced the Raptor XE yesterday: https://www.red.com/stories/v-raptor-xe-launch Gates also has stated that their Raptor housing fits it right out of the box (on Facebook). "The V-RAPTOR XE is built around the essentials of modern filmmaking. Key features include: 8K VV up to 60fps, 6K S35 up to 80fps, 4K up to 120fps, and 2K up to 240fps Industry-leading sensor technology with an advanced 8K large format (VV) global shutter sensor Significantly reduced boot time and sensor power consumption (with upcoming firmware update) Iconic RED DNA with extraordinary image quality Unmatched low-light capabilities (17 stops) Available with RF Mount or Nikon Z Mount for ultimate lens flexibility Compact body at just over 4 lbs. that allows for tremendous flexibility in any shooting environment Compatibility with V-RAPTOR accessories" $14,995 (in the US). On the higher end of price, but 8k 60p with a global shutter seems like it could be really nice. I also like that they are sticking with offering both RF and Z mounts.

Released - Overall looks interesting in spec. Dual Base ISO with one at 6400 - so that is good. Can do 7k 60p - (but not in open gate - that is limited to 30p) CLog2 Open Gate (Maybe interesting for underwater?) Lots of Raw capabilities $3,899 (for US folks) Downsides: No Flash Sync (lets see if this is true - they say that electronic shutter can't trigger a flash, which isn't true according to me syncing flashes with my other canon's in Electronic only mode) Some of the HQ spec is limited to 30p, including Open Gate. (and they Released the 11-55 .. for $35k)

I'll just add that the main reason i use 360 underwater is for VR using a Meta Quest to let non-divers experience the world down there. I have a bespoke GoPro Max housing that works well for this, but the Insta360 in the underwater housing is not acceptable. Poor stitching in significant number of shots and really soft to the point of unusability. I almost wonder if they are capturing data from a subset of the sensor and then extrapolating leading to the softness. I hope they can firmware up this, but at the moment, I do not consider this an underwater tool (it works ok If you then turn it into a non -360 image... but it is still really soft.) I hope the Osmo360 in a housing may be better (or really hope for a firmware update that makes the X5 work underwater). Or if anyone has settings or tricks to make it not look bad - I'm listening!

Shame on no IBIS (for some.. but maybe mostly me), but one of the main questions is whether they will have easy/1 button White Balance since it is Cin focused. The other question is whether someone will make a housing, but this seems like a likely candidate. If the photos turn out accurate, then the full size HDMI is nice to see (also expected for the stated purpose). Looking forward to the announcement though and with the (relatively) cost effective price of the C400, there is a chance this won't be stupid money to get.

Really interesting article @Phil Rudin . Within it, I noticed that you were using the Aquista Wet Mate lens, and I haven't read or seen any reviews of that lens, including how it compares to the WWL-1(b). Can you comment or would you be willing to start a thread with your thoughts on it?

It looks like on the Seafrogs website that the extension that they recommend for the 14-35 F4L is the 61mm extension (for the R5 which is really what I think you should be looking at chart wise) - which is inline with what Nauticam and Marelux also have for that lens (40-55mm depending on dome - but I would think that the Seafrogs is more like the 50). For those brands, the 15-30 uses between a 10 and 20mm shorter extension, and mostly 20mm shorter. I shoot underwater with both of these lenses and the 15-30 is the more forgiving lens and really a great underwater lens (however I often just use it for video so can't comment much on it for stills). I wouldn't 'upgrade' to the 14-35 unless you already own it above water and can use the proper extension unlike the 15-30 (although the 37mm MAY work well with the 15-30 underwater?) I will also echo what everyone has said about f-stop. I shoot F/11 to F/14 with these lenses and often zoom in just a bit as that sharpens things up a bit (more so with the 14-35 - the 15-30 I tend to shoot at 15). I can shoot F/8 if I am not going to look at the corners. Also - your photos are nice! If you are producing those quality images, then I don't think you need to focus on fixing gear but more experiment with lighting and camera settings to get more shots that you like. (and adding a strobe - even a cheap one - is the game changer).

I have had very similar results when using Pure Video. Really not sharp, especially close to the lens. It looks best when it is the invisible stick away or a little farther from the subject.

Hi Kristin, The R5 (and most FF cameras) have settings where they just use the crop component of the sensor - so act like a crop. If you use the RF-EF lens adaptor and you put an EF-S lens on the camera it automatically swaps into crop (aps-c) mode and works perfectly with that lens. You can also manually put it into that setting. So yes! It will work just fine with your 60mm macro. The caveat is that the crop mode is 17 megapixels on the R5 (I think) so much less than the R7. Strange that it only played nice intermittently - I have had zero issues with any ef-s lens with the (canon brand) EF-RF adaptor and EF lenses

There has been some great information on this thread, but i think one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the R5 (i or ii) is also a really great aps-c crop body when used that way. In addition, as you start stacking stabilization (for video especially) you start using less and less of the sensor so it becomes more cropped in body. Sure you are not using all the pixels that you paid for but it gives a one body solution. For specifics, I shoot the R5 for stills using the 8-15mm fisheye with a small port. It is a dream - super easy to shoot, FF and TONS to crop with (I also am a cropper). I also have a suite of rectilinear lenses that I use but for stills the 8-15mm is the winner in most situations when shooting stills. For video, I use a big dome, but if I was using a small dome, I would just use the S35/Apsc setting and then there are tons of options that are focused on that sensor size - with no real downsides (in my opinion) compared to something like the R7. If you later decide that you need full frame video (and there are very few need scenarios as David DB pointed out) you can always grow to that but you get FF too. The only other choice is that N120 vs N100 if sticking with Nauticam for the housing. If you went another brand (Marelux) then R7 and R5 all use the same port and you can adapt your current domes to it using the available adapters. But I understand wanting to stick with Nauticam - great housings. But I think the R7 (i or ii) are superb choices just wanted to add the above to the discussion.

I use the 14-35 w 230 dome and a Ninja in a housing (Marelux but will be not that different). My rig is neutral with 2 -12" and 1.25 diameter float arms and a 8" 1.25" dia float arm, when using 2 keldan lights. So yours would be a bit less than that and won't have lighting. I run the 12" floats out horizontally and the 8" on a triple clamp with the other parts attaching to the top of the housing and the monitor so I can trim the camera side to side or forward and back. If I was shooting for hours in a pool, I would not want to be fighting with a negatively boyant camera. If shooting stills, I wouldn't be using the monitor either though - especially for split shots. I only use the Ninja on video dives as you can't get rid of the overlay while the Ninja is in the housing (no way to just touch the screen away from the bottom of the ninja where most of the settings are). Just thought I would share my boyancy setup. With the big dome and a few extra mm of length if you go for the 15-35L you should not be super heavy in the water - but it will still be pretty negative. I also have a 15-30 that I keep in my bag as a backup, cheap as a backup and known to work better behind the dome than some nicer lenses (including the 14-35 that I shoot with). The 24mm macro behind either the 180 or 230 dome is joyful to shoot with and may be another good option for you (instead of the nifty 50).

I find the buttons plenty accessible on the Marelux. This is the R6ii housing but it is the same on the R5. I setup the AF-on for my main use as it is very easy to hit - sometime back button focus, sometimes just set to AF-on eye tracking. You also get good access to the M-Fn and Rec buttons if you need to remap. The * and [-] are also easy to access but can take a hand reposition. Before thinking about 3d printing something - reach out to Marelux if they have a zoom adaptor for the 24-50.

For size of the Marelux R6 ii housing - The width of the housing without handles is 22cm and with handles is 36cm. I say this is I will often pull the handles to be able to fit it, the camera, strobes/video lights, and 2 ports plus extensions in a carryon bag - and that is easier with the handles pulled. Height with balls on the handle is 21cm and without the balls on 20cm. Front to back, without a port is 14cm. I have not used any of the wet lenses from Marelux - they are pretty new though (the lenses) so maybe there will be more information soon.

I have the R6ii and use it in the Marelux housing. I'll send the dimensions on it shortly (without port on it? or with RF100 port on it?). I'll also check if it has the 67 mm port end that would work with the SMC-3. I use it almost exclusively for video and not much with Macro - I mostly shoot wide. I can say that I really like the housing and camera and would get them both again. If you have specific questions, please do ask. I have not used it with the WWL-1B or any of the Nauticam optics. They do make many adaptors that are not on their website and are very responsive to questions (and there is really good info in that shared thread).

The salty water doesn't help when the air is bellow the freezing temperature of seawater due to transport as Brandon said. I will say that my colleague uses a WWL system in Antarctica (-1.8 C water and often -20 above) without any issue, so those diving in (really) cold water should not avoid the WWL but should be aware of the important points about anything fresh freezing, as well as the impact of abrupt temperature changes that Brandon points out.

RE I would reach out directly to Marelux about anything that you are interested in as they tend to have a lot under development or even ready to ship that may not be visible on the website. I have done that a few times and they are always responsive. I also purchased a housing that was only a rendering from their site at one point (and was nervous about it) but the housing was excellent when it showed up. So I would suggest not thinking the only things they have are what is visible on the website and it can be worth an email. Since they follow one port size for everything, the charts tend to be more straight forward than having N80,N100,N120, etc and various adapters between them.

I have also used Marelux for 2+ years. Like Phil said, not only the housings but all of the bits really add up to a big price difference in the end between it and Nauticam. Marelux have also been responsive with questions and I would buy housings from them again (and have... I own 2 of their housings now (R5, R6 II), and just about every port they sell). Marelux housings can be adapted to many of the really nice Nauticam optics (WACP/ WWL) although one needs to ask people like Phil the right ports, etc. if that is a concern for you. I actually really like that all of their housings use the same port system. For me that is a selling point. I also have looked at "smaller" mirrorless housings and they are really not that much smaller. The big part for me is the front element (dome or similar( and that is set by focal length and sensor size. The housing sizes really differ between P&S and full frame mirrorless and then it is a bit of a wash. If you have any specific questions let me know. The flash trigger has been excellent. The pressure sensors work. I have 100? dives on them and in challenging conditions and they have been great. I am not affiliated with Marelux and paid for my housings (if that matters - Phil is always very honest about things that work and those that don't even though he has a Marelux affiliation).

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.