ColdDarkDiver

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.

I have the 16mm and I use it as a backup lens or when I want something smaller than my other lenses. As you said - small, light, and "cheap" so if something goes wrong with my other lens then I have a backup. I also really like that I can use zero extension and a 180mm dome for a relatively compact rig. I have not had any issues with focus or anything else on it...however - I also just don't use it that much. I keep on meaning too but then I almost always end up putting a different lens on the camera: 8 -15 fish for stills, the 14-35 for video or mixed, and when I am feeling lazy, want to shoot wider open, or want very straight lines - the 24mm macro. So, I have nothing but good things to say about it even though I almost never use it. There is no way I would leave it behind for remote shooting though. It is a perfect backup lens and I have been happy with the image I have collected with it. I also will sometimes just take it as my main lens on a hike...it is really small and light. I will dig up some photos and post them here in the next couple days (they are not on the computer I am on right now).

I think it is the rapid temperature change causing the air to expand (and this should be much less of a problem if a vacuum was pulled), but it has always surprised me - and I have flooded at least a strobe or two this way. In those cases, it was always a plastic housing not metal and not on something that I had pulled a vacuum on. But I just am delicate with all my housings, especially the ones with the expensive cameras inside when dealing with rapid temperature changes.

In Celsius, that water would be FAR to warm to dive 🙂 If bottom water is 40 (which is brisk) and you are in a heated boat or vehicle, or its really sunny and stagnant you can have a nice warm rinse tank. Just takes a really strong thermocline. Much more common is a nice dive on a day with strong upwelling so the water temp is in the mid to upper 40s and the boat is sitting in some glorious sun. 50 F (bottom water) to 80F (rinse tank) is even easier, and we have that happen frequently. We have multiple lakes here that stay in the 40s all year and the surface can be dreadfully warm (so not just in the ocean). Also a good reason just to swap the rinse water to fresh and colder water when you come up, if the temp differential isn't too much everything is happy.

As said, this is usually not a problem but assembling in the least moist space as possible (AC) or in very dry air. Having said that, I have frequently taken an Alu housing from 80 C to 55 without any issue (or from 65 to <0 C... but the air is really dry). I do not put dessicant in my housings. The other thing I would strongly suggest is being weary of the water that you rinse your housing in after the dive. A 40 deg housing getting dumped into an 80 degree rinse tank is a great way to flood a housing. I let mine warm up and make sure it is similar in temperature to the rinse tank before putting it in. I do use running water to wash the front of the port after I get up, but will then let the whole housing warm prior to a submergence and/or soak and then only if the rise water is not hot.

I've used mine a bunch for photos. In good light, they can come out really good. I also use them for close ups with video lights. About as cheap and durable as it gets, and very easy to swim long distances with. If only they would work with strobes...on dives when photography or video is not the point, I always just clip it to the BC. One never knows what they will see. I also love using it for time lapse (on a tripod like you did). That plus a gorrila pod holder is hours of fun video/stills/timelapse.

I think the A6700 is a sweet spot for video and agree with what everyone said about 60p instead of 120. I also would say the A7c ii has very similar video spec to the A6700 if you view it as a crop camera for video, but with the ability to shoot FF @ 30p. This would be useful if shooting in dark environments or you just need 30p, plus gives the opportunity to shoot FF stills if you so desire. Sony is all about the heavy crop when shooting 60p in everything but the A7IIIs or A1. I'm not sure I would go with the A7c ii over the A6700 but something else to think about.

I think a lot of the reasons to consider using a prime above water applies to using one below water. And specifically, one is forced to focus on composition differently, and that can be a strength. I'd say 28 is pretty long, but I do use a 24mm prime sometimes. This can also add some real joy into the experience by adding a bit of simplicity into an endeavor that is not very simple to begin with.

The lens itself is 121mm wide so wouldn't fit in a normal port (including the base) for Nauticam housings even if you attached the lens from the front. Plus it is so short it might not even clear the front of the housing. Unless I am wrong (in case anyone has the lens on hand to try it).

The Sexton Corporation built a port for this to work on the Red Raptor housing. There was a facebook post about it (not sure if its cool to post it here but if you FB and look up Sexton Corporation - you will see it from January of this year). Apparently works awesome even though the individual domes are wee small. I want one too 🙂 And Sexton are amazing to work with. So maybe we will see more in the future with this lens.

Is it inappropriate to dislike a post because it may cost me some more money? I have been intrigued by the 24-50 +WWL. Thanks for the insight! Also "I find great success in *not* using the lens profiles in LR. " - Agreed! I have found in general avoiding lens corrections (below water) is the solution to many of my initial complaints about images.

I have an R5 and an R6ii and a variety of the lenses discussed. Of all of them, the go to is easily the 8-15mm fisheye. I tape it in 15mm mode and it focuses just great on any of the bodies. I was slow to pick it up since I didn't think I wanted the fisheye look. I was wrong.. I did. I dive with it all the time now and with a nice and small 140mm dome. I love it. I do miss the IS but since there is in body, I still get great shots and you can shoot it wide open aperature since it is a fisheye. I also have and use the 14-35 and have used it with both a 180 and 230mm dome. Its superb - sharp, fast, wonderful color and contrast. The 7-8 stops of stabilization is also really nice. On both domes it is a bit soft in the corners, but not to the point where I don't dive it all the time. I especially use this lens when shooting video (it is my go to video lens). This lens is also a joy to use above water. I try to shoot it at around 18mm when I care about corners, but I also don't not shoot it at 14mm. I did not get the 15-35 F/2.8 since it is more expensive, larger, and there is not a 2.8 use scenario for underwater photography. I still sometimes almost impulse buy it - but I have not done so. This one also doesn't go to 14mm so while the 14-35 is softer in the corners at 14... it isn't really an option with the 15-35. Above water, I also like a smaller size even though I have read that the 15-35 is a better lens, I can't imagine it getting me any images or better than I have gotten using the 14-35. The other lens that I like is the 24mm macro. It is really small, "cheap", very sharp and you can use it with a 180mm dome with zero extensions so it is a nice and small package (for a FF underwater rig). Great backup video rig or stills. I was hesitant to dive with this until I realized all of my days shooting on P&S and even Nikonos slide were at 24mm or longer. I will shoot this one pretty open as well and the images are nice. I have not shot the 10-20mm. Looks sweet. I haven't seen a review underwater for it though. I would think you would always need at least a 230mm dome if not the 250. I'd get the 8-15 first without giving it a second thought. I also have the 11-24mm and haven't even bothered to take it underwater since I always just end up using the 8-15 (stills) 14-35 (video) 24mm Macro (feeling like a simple dive and want to be able to get really close to stuff cause the vis stinks), or 100mm macro (macro dive but clear enough water to have some working distance). Happy diving!

I went ISO 5000 for as Bermaglot said - to expose the background and then fill the foreground. I chose the sharper corners and so smaller aperture, but yes - always an internal debate for me as to whether shoot wider open or bump the ISO. Either way, the strobes would still overexpose. I find 5k is very workable on the R5 and I can shoot 1/40th with the IBIS and usually get crisp images (5k ISO is workable as long as I get the exposure pretty close in the first place). I usually try to stay between F/8 and F/13 - but sometimes the corners should be sacrificed. The image was in the Southern Ross Sea, Antarctica at a spot called Explorer's cove ~ 78 degrees S.

Have you or will you do you plan to try it with 4k60p RAW? My macbook air M2 can handle anything but RAW without a problem and wondering if a studio is enough to grade prores RAW without going the proxy route.

Thanks for the compliments on the picture and the info. I wasn't going to post a bad pic to demonstrate the challenge 🙂 but this was an example of what could be saved whereas others were more challenging - especially when shooting white subjects. Davide - the marbling on the surface is algae growing on the underside of sea ice - ice and snow thickness makes them have different colors and it is mesmerizing.

I am wondering if anyone is using ND filters on their strobes and their experience with them if so. On a recent trip, I had constant issues placing my strobes where I wanted to place them as they were too much and provided too much light even on their lowest setting. I am shooting Inon Z330s on manual. In particular for CFWA I can’t place the strobes where I should (according to Adam’s wonderful book) as I always blow out the image. I think part of this is that I am shooting at high ISO to expose the background right and it is very dark so high ISO, slow shutter speed, etc. From a composition standpoint, I don’t want to drop the exposure and so instead I have been moving the strobes well away from the camera body and angling them to get a more diffuse light and still light the subject, but it can lead to shadows that I don’t love plus I couldn’t always get as close to the subject that I wanted and still light it smoothly. I know that Inon makes ND filters for these strobes & I was planning on picking up a set, but I was wondering if anyone has experience using ND filters for this purpose. So people have something to look at - here is an example that was fixed in post by bringing all the highlights and whites WAY down and having to use the DR of the camera to its fullest. And this wasn’t even one of the dark sites - ISO 5k, f/10, 1/40th R5.