John E

You could try Underwater Photo & Video Equipment - Buy & Sell Facebook Group. Somebody listed a pair for sale in Illinois a couple of days ago.

I agree with the comments above. As someone in reef tourism I'd emphasise that the Olympus TG6 or TG7 have advantages. It can produce good shots on its own with no strobe, tray or wet lens if you need to go as small as possible. It doesn't need anything like as much preparation or care for a dive because it is a waterproof camera in a housing, so you can focus your attention on customers. The TG6 or 7 have really good jpegs when used underwater and if you take photos of customers you can share them straight after a dive eg using Olympus-share onto your phone and airdrop. You can also potentially use the camera as a rental and hire it to customers. The quality for social media or website use is fine. For Canon, the Nauticam R50 looks really interesting but with the wet lenses added I suggest it is too bulky and heavy for a divemaster diving with inexperienced customers (I have a WWL-1B but not handled a WWL-C) . For any compact camera in your situation I would be tempted by a less expensive second-hand camera in an aluminium housing and not be too set on particular model, but get one that has been looked after (even older G16's in a Nauticam housing can be good). Depending on your own needs, a simple less valuable small camera for diving with customers and a larger one like the one you have for diving without customers might be preferable to a half-way solution.

I wonder if anyone knows what is special about the S+S correction lens or is it like other low power achromatic diopters? My limited understanding is that single lens diopters (filters) impact image quality whereas achromatic ones are much better. Both just act to reduce the minimum focus distance, helping the lens focus on the virtual image which is close to the sensor and curved. So if the S+S is not available, or is not a suitable size for a particular lens, another weak achromatic filter would likely do the same thing? There are several high quality low-power achromatic filters including the Canon 500d close-up lens, Nikon 5T diopter, and Sigma close-up lens AML 72-01 (which I have and is 72mm threads) which seem to do the same thing but are in different diameters due to sometimes being intended for specific lenses.

I'm thinking of boat compasses. These are filled with a transparent mineral oil and it is not unusual to get bubbles, especially with age. But a reason oil is used in that case is to dampen the motion of the compass card. I agree it would be odd to have oil in an optical instrument but the only potential reason I can think of would be to help make a complex shape pressure proof. Seems weird to get droplets in something before it goes in the water even if it has been knocked, unless as Dave wrote, some drops of liquid were already inside but not on glass and moved?

I don't know how viewfinders are made but it seems logical that if the "droplets" arrived before submersion they could indicate the viewfinder is oil filled and the droplets are actually bubbles. If it is oil filled maybe the knock has caused a tiny bit to be lost or dislodged so there are now small bubbles on glass. Maybe it is possible to get these to move off the glass possible by something like warming the viewfinder slightly such as putting it in the sun so the oil gets less viscous and the bubbles rise.

I think a few people use this lens as it has a versatile zoom range for mixing wide-angle and close-up on the same dive. I mainly got it for fish and people portraits but it seems a good lens for dives when I don't know what to expect. I have been using it with a close-up achromatic diopter lens. (Sigma AML-72-01) which 72mm diameter, matching the lens filter threads. I think it is 1.75 strength. To be honest I am not sure how important the diopter is, but it certainly seems sharp using it. Maybe someone else has the calculations on what it does to the minimum focus distance. I have a photo of the top of my Sony A75 with the diopter and without which shows the minimum focus distance looks slightly reduced, but not by much. I assume it helps corners at the 20mm end and maybe helps to be able use a larger aperture with an 8 inch dome. I haven't tried it in a smaller dome. Isotta have a zoom gear and port extension for this lens although it is not yet listed on their Sony port chart. The replicated close-up pictures are just crops of the original frame. Of course for wide angle it is not as possible to get as close as an ultrawide lens to the subject but in clear water it is still effective.

Thanks. I have wondered the same thing with this lens. I have the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter, and on my Sony the 4k60 has a 1.2 crop too, so I am guessing the resulting field of view is pretty good. I also wonder if using the additional advanced stabilisation means the 4k60 is not necessary for smoothing footage? And wow the reefs filmed look so sad. Can you say how patchy this was - just some areas of reef with extra local warming due to water flow or was it very widespread?

Fantastic .. and the music choice works so well.

Thanks for a great article and raising this topic. Also, Tim please do your article on neutral spaces. I took the attached photo this week which I personally really like because it did involve a some effort to try try to create a certain feeling and memory of the moment.

If you are willing to use APS-C mode when you need faster sync speed it is possible to get faster sync with the Sony A7R5 as that means the dark band at the top of the frame is not in frame. I haven't tested it thoroughly but tried it when I first got the camera and, from memory, I think 1/400s is fine. This is bearing in mind that the APS-C mode is 26MP and that the pixel size is the same as the Sony A6700 and larger than the OM System OM1.

Hi Chris, Are you now using your OM1-1 underwater? I know you previously had the OM-D EM 1 ii underwater and the Om-1 above. If so I am interested in your thoughts, maybe on a different thread. Thanks John

Thanks Chris and Phil. By the way Phil, in case anyone else looks for it, I found the review in issue #132. I'll try the Sony 20-70mm.

Thanks Chris, The Tamron 35mm has a close focus of 15cm. I can't see a slightly longer prime for Sony from them. I have wondered about the 20-70 and am tempted. I wonder how is does in an 8 inch dome? I see 9 inch is recommended. I am fussed about centre sharpness but not overly fussed about the extreme corners as this is mainly for photos with a central subject.

I am thinking more of close up coral colony and medium sized fish pictures that suit this focal length rather than pure macro. Just wondering what the conclusion is between the Sony 50mm macro and the adapted Canon 60mm macro on a late model Sony like A7Rv? Maybe a different prime is better like a close-focusing Tamron?

Obviously camera systems suit different people's use requirement so the title of this thread is silly. But the point that crop sensor lenses and suitability for reasonable size domes often work better for a particular person or underwater use is correct. That is not news, and all the advice I've seen given on this forum when people ask questions about new gear reflect that. Pooley hit it spot on when saying the photography is not about test graphs. Striving for technical perfection in a picture but not putting the same attention into creativity easily ends up with photos that are fairly boring other than a personal connection for the actual photographer. This is more true now than ever with the development of AI.

It doesn't look like you can assume you are getting the colour the diffuser claims when you take a picture underwater... Re Inon diffusers... From Driefish "The S-220 for example measure as 6650k without diffusers and 5400k with the Inon '4600k' filter." I am intrigued why the manufacturers may be off. Is there a reason or is it, say, the way the measurement is taken in water? I don't see any marketing logic for a manufacturer to incorrectly state a diffuser colour. The may not want their strobe to appear to customers as too high Kelvin, and that may be a trade-off for power, but if they make a range of diffusers why not be accurate?

Love the photos, thanks for sharing.

Thanks for the comparison photos, and for shining some light on this topic. Some replies have been illuminating. They do show the importance of smooth light fall off especially when using dual strobes angled slightly outwards to get even light across the picture Personally, I think the very colour-saturated coral reef photos, whilst beautiful, are quite unoriginal now and get too much exposure, whilst ambient light pictures that more closely reflect what we really see under water (and preferably capture some of the magic of it) are mostly left in the dark. Before I warm too much to making bad puns I will cool off and go and recharge.

Like Interceptor121 says, the TG-6 is hard to beat for snorkelling (but definitely use a housing as without one the camera will eventually leak at one of the little door seals). The 130 degree wet lenses are better than the 90 degree wet lenses which Mark said he didn't like. But if you are a very experienced photographer and you already have the cameras, and you are snorkelling, your situation is different to most. I suggest an important criteria is what field of view you want. The TG-6 with a 130 degrees wet lens that can come off to do great macro is unique. I also have the Ikelite TG-6 housing with small dome and the Olympus fisheye converter lens for the TG-6, which gives fisheye to macro in a tiny system. But if you want better image quality, and you have the cameras already, that similar zoom range comes with a weight and size penalty that potentially impacts snorkelling fun. If fisheye alone is ok the Olympus is better due to the lens options as it is compact, but you will possibly find that too limiting. Then if you want a narrower field of view you are looking at 8 inch dome ports or a wet lens. If you want zoomable fisheye then both cameras need adapted lenses and you are looking at similar sizes and quite expensive systems with adapters, zoom gears, extensions and housing manufacturers that support that option. Likewise, either system would be a similar size with a 130 degree wet lens. If the choice was Sony in Seafrogs versus Olympus in AOI, (or either in Ikelite) it really comes down to the lenses and how much bulk you want to swim with. And if that works out too much then it brings you back down a notch to the better compact systems with a wet lens, which is what I would be learning towards, pretty much just like the system Fruehaufsteher2 showed.

Have you thought about an AOI housing for the OM1? Maybe you would get more help from Backscatter.

One of the advantages of the Sony A7RV is versatility due to the sensor pixel density being like the A6700. With combined port extensions where 20mm can be removed, this means the rig can be used with the Kenko and a larger port for best full frame picture quality, but also handily can be used without the Kenko and with a small fisheye port and shorter port when minimum housing size is needed, such as when freediving. Then it can be used in full frame mode or the 26Mp APS-C frame size with zoom range. I am not sure if it better to use the APS-C mode on the camera or stay with full frame and just crop. Maybe someone can confirm? I don't think it makes any difference in picture quality but having the APS-C mode on the function button menu makes it very quick to switch to help framing composition.

So what is the real world interpretation? If one has the choice between Sony 26-60mm + WWL-1, the Canon 8-15mm, Sony 14mm or Sony 16-35mm at it's widest, and is taking the same type of shot such as a reef scene, which would be the better option for overall sharpness? Assuming the correct extensions are used and the appropriate dome size, is the fisheye the worst option unless the specific style is needed, or does the close working distance reducing the amount of water in front of the camera offset any drawbacks and mean it is the best option?

Maybe it is worth a test in a pool and have the same composition i.e backed off on the non-fisheye - this would better reflect real world use - as Chris H points out about the shooting distance for a given subject. For the Canon 8-15mm fisheye, if you are talking about an APS-C crop wouldn't it also be relevant to try it wider than 15mm? (noting the Sony A7Rv has the same pixel density as the A6700). i.e. I wonder what is the fisheye pictures edge difference between the APS-C crop at around 10mm (or whatever is the exact equivalent) to full frame at 15mm? Then there is the question of the view at the fisheye edge being so oblique anyway.

This is an example of using the Canon 8-15mm fisheye plus 1.4 Kenko with a Sony A7Rv but doing some partial de-fishing in Lightroom just because of the straight lines on the coral nursery. This happens to be with an 8 inch dome as that is what I had.

Olympus 7-14mm now sold Olympus 60mm now sold