ColdDarkDiver

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.

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 🙂.