ColdDarkDiver

I have used both and in similar conditions. They are not comparable. I think the normal X5 case should not have been released. The Pro is bigger and still barely usable in many conditions but doesn't look anywhere near as bad as the normal X5 case. I like having the pro for what you describe, but now I just bring it on dives when I don't bring the normal camera rig. Or I bring it and then set it down and do stuff around it and then move it again. I'm trying to think if I have side to side comparisons, but don't think I do. I had high hopes for it, but they were not met for either one but the Pro is significantly better.

Many of the decisions in the review were made for a point, and while we all like to internet judge others - the more we do that the less likely future iterations like this will come out. If this comparison was nothing more than the slider tool, it would remain one of the most helpful comparisons out there. What else do we have? Hard work by Dave and others that are one offs between 2-4 strobes (which are super useful!)? Information from other sites where everything is great - even a gopro that can't focus close enough to be usable underwater being a good choice? Or a lot of people who just bought a strobe and say how great it is. In the retra response "A retailer testing what it sells" - Is not correct as it also tests strobes it doesn't sell. Backscatter also does not recommend any strobe, including their own (which is branded - so I think the COI is pretty obvious). So the attempt to be impartial is there. They have also - and specifically - not steered people towards their branded items in their many review videos. If a good option, they have - in the past - recommended one of their own products but also suggested strobes from other brands. When someone comes out with tests like this, everyone loves to jump on them for not doing it this way or that. Each of the decisions was for a reason. Is it to make their strobe look good? Or was it that they have to choose one way, and any way will be flawed to some degree. Then we can balance that with most people's attention span - there is only so much people will read these days. Personally, much the like comparison tools that have helped us buy cameras on sites like dpreview, this is at least an attempt to provide one more piece of information that allows people to compliment information gained on sites like waterpixels and various youtube channels.

It does depend on the body you chose. For FF and zoom (and not Fisheye). The Canon 15-30 works very well behind a dome (180 and 230). I also use the 14-35 and think it is a great lens, but I do not find that it outperforms the 15-30 underwater. The 14-35 is happier in the edges at 16 and greater mm settings. The 15-30 is more cost effective with no downsides behind a dome. Above water I much prefer the 14-35. So my setup is either the 15-30 or the 8-15mm fisheye taped to 15mm. Some great options for wet optics, but I don't use them (yet). If going crop (R7) - then there are some other great options but I don't have experience with them.

This is a really interesting review. I think two things that i really appreciated about it (other than a huge amount of work) is that it: 1) Is the first comparable review of the Sea and Sea YS-D130r 2) It reviews Marelux even though Backscatter does not sell them. I also really appreciate that they did it with and without diffusers for the beam comparison since so many of us shoot with diffusers all the time, or pretty close to all the time and so comparing one with and one without is helpful. Finally, I will be adjusting the color temperature I shoot with my strobes underwater based on their findings, so even without being in the market for a new set of strobes, it was a helpful read.

The housing brand question is a real challenge with no one right answer. I went Marelux, not only for the housing cost but every accessory adds up very quick and when I priced the housing I was able to get much more. The flip side (for better and worse) is that Marelux all uses the same size port... which is just a weeee bit bigger than the N120 that Nauticam uses on many of their housings... except the Sony's which use a N100. This means the camera housing is larger even if the body is smaller. On the other side - all marelux housings use the same ports so if you change cameras in the future you are still good to go. As for the 45 degree viewfinder - I just invested in one. I like it. I would not get it for the A7c(series) as the EVF is not good. The reason why i really like it is because I need reading glasses and means I can see the screen crisply. The 45 degree viewfinder is also a big beast that is one more thing to bounce around. This is another place where the difference in cost between other companies and Nauticam is apparent. 780 USD (Marelux) vs 2000 USD (Nauticam). The Nauticam may be better? But for the A7c(r) or A7cII the evf is not why one would choose this camera.

A lot of great information in this thread. I would only suggest that between the A7cII and the A7r, the extra mpix will be very welcome for the task you propose and the a7r will be less limiting. It has been mentioned numerous times that TTL is important, but I would point out that the most expensive part of this is the TTL adapter that will work with whatever strobe you want. The simplicity of just having the correct exposure across those different fish is pretty key. And having bought a non-TTL and then a TTL... I went the most expensive route possible. With a strobe, you light it up for such a short period of time it freezes the action even if there is movement. Not so with a video light so that also means greater success with a strobe compared to a video light if the fish decide to move at all. My other thought, is a 180 dome floating around while you are trying to catch fish is a great way to get it beat up quick and a PITA. A flat port will be less likely to get scratched and that maybe of importance when deciding on your rig.

I'll play :) (in good fun - I appreciate what was in this post - but will provide my experience). So - yes and maybe? My take on this is that you want to use just enough light to light the subject but without blowing out the water but getting the depth of color that it has. ISO is critical. By doing this - and maximizing the dynamic range captured by the camera so you can bring it all together in post (if you need to) but you still need the light to bring out the colors that will otherwise be lost. Under and over exposed means you can bring it back if you need be with the latitude of modern sensors, but using everything the shot has is ideal. I find that the most important thing in murky water (which I know and love) is that one has to adjust their strobes for each shot to only light the subject and no more. In clear water, set and forget and it is fine, but in murky it is a constant movement of strobes in, out, angled out, angled in - for each shot to overlap just what one wants lit and as little water as possible. It is set by distance to the subject more than anything else... which also means adjusting power output. I also think that white point and black point setting is really important, but touching on the importance of all the dynamic range that is good, I thought I would add a few examples. These are all straight from camera - R5 (which is pretty solid dynamic range). I'm including the histogram (untouched) to show the need to expose the background and it is not only black and white point setting. Canon R5: Straight from Camera: I used all the dynamic range and it is the darks that make this something intriguing - and this is ISO 1600 - f13. Or - Kelp experience (I'm cheating here since this was ISO 100 since I was shooting sun but i think it shows how we are still using all of the dynamic range available) (Ok this one I cropped but I didn't impact the histogram with it but as shot - it exposed the background and lit the foreground while capturing all the light and information possible).

There are some examples coming out on FB now Andi Voeltz shared some using the 20-50 F4. Pasting one image here (mods - please remove if violates rules - It is pretty clearly branded so gives credit to photog). Looks promising! Can't wait for more images - and I would be really happy if a port like this worked with a lens as nice as the 20-50 (or any L lens for that matter).

I would say i disagree with two of the sentiments: 1) Most of my images expose the background, so that is a normal use case not a unique one- even if a close up and definitly CFWA. I find ISO (aka light) to be the major compositional hurdle in much of my image making. Sure packages are great at removing noise - but they all still do it at the reduction of sharpness. Absolutely agree that in this sense a smaller sensor allows an easier to shoot fStop that allow more relative light to the sensor -but I will sacrafice corners and either crop or just live with it when I need to drop below f/13. Also a couple of stops provided by wet optics also brings things closer - but $$ and size. 2) I have never wanted less than "more" dynamic range. I can never have enough especially when trying to get the darks to come alive to balance bright foreground subjects. I think there are very strong arguments for M43/aps-c/ and FF. All can capture amazing images - no doubt. But I think we are a group that constantly pushes the abilities of even modern sensors to their limit - even though we often (if not pretty much always) are adding light with strobes/lights.

I think this is an important point. Most of us only use this (and the 8-15) as a 14/15 prime. So the extension may be different if you want to get that 180 look at 7/8mm or just want the sharpest corners at 14/15mm.

They also provide the ability to have diopter corrections built in so for those of us who use glasses, you can see what you camera is doing without sort of squinting and thinking you know what your settings are or how the picture looks. So +1 for 45 degree (surprisingly large) viewfinders.

Given your criteria, I would suggest you look into the WACP and WWL lenses for the various systems and Sony is the no brainer here. If I wanted a small system, Sony A7cii with WWL or WACP (although there is not a huge size hit for going any of the A7 series). Your suggestion that the fixed port of the R50 as a limiting factor suggests you haven't really looked into the advantages of wet mate lenses. Don't mean offense if you have. The various options get away from large domes and work at more open f/stops as well as in water flexibility. As soon as you add a monitor you have a big system. Like real big - so the housing size is only a small piece of the size puzzle if you are actually considering an external monitor. Plus if diving where you need light (aka everywhere) then again - the system has grown with arms, floats, etc. If anything the larger housing makes it easier to handle (when collecting imagery) and control but to each their own. I do miss the small size of the good ol film camera! But then again, I took >500 shots on three dives yesterday. That would have been a lot of slide film!

And it looks like Marelux, Nauticam, and Ikelite will be making housings for the FX5. Nothing on the official channels but Blue Water Photo (and Backscatter for Nauticam) have housings listed for pre-order.

As a Canon shooter....I think so? I believe the latest iterations of the cameras can White Balance for deeper water without the issues they used to have. I have worked with some Sony footage recently and it looked great, but that was not deep footage.

Sony released a new body today the FX5 - Seems to be the next iteration of the FX3 line with open gate, triple base ISO, internal RAW, and some other goodies. Seems like it would be perfect for the ol' sony wet and dry optic options and could be a popular option. It seems like it won't fit in an FX3 housing... so lets see if anyone makes a housing for it. So many cameras in this space at the moment, it seems like it will be hard for the housing companies to decide which one to support. PetaPixelSony FX5 Has a New Sensor, Open Gate, Internal RAW, and S...The new Sony FX5 answers nearly ever criticism levied against the FX3.