Davide DB

Yes, that's true. But not everyone can afford to put an Alexa camera in a housing. So, people make compromises 🤑 And if you look at the monitor table in the pinned thread, the price difference is not small. Ciao

They are very similar. Both have the joystick and N100 port. The only clear difference that comes to my mind is that the A1 housing has an M24 port for HDMI 1.4 and 2.0 while the A7SIII housing has an M16 port which fits only HDMI 1.4. Nauticam has probably decided to make fewer types of housings and now only sells the housing for the A1. Have you tried to contact Nauticam USA or Backscatter?

Welcome aboard, We are happy to have another underwater video fan here. We hope you like the forum. Ciao

That's a great point, and the OG R5s are pretty easy to find used

Amazing quality images and perfect editing. Bravo! I see one of the shrimps goes down to the nudi's feeding mouth. Does it eat the same things? Thanks

Do you know the exact weight of the Fotocore MR6 monitor? I wasn't able to get this info. Their previous model was over 700 gr negative

When I set up my GH5 many years ago, that's exactly what happened. The housing, with a 6" acrylic dome port, was almost neutral, but it kept turning dome-up, and I had to apply a fair amount of force to keep it horizontal. I ended up adding a good 700 grams to the dome's neck, and at that point, I had to start adding flotation arms. It was a never-ending spiral. Unfortunately, a camera's shape is the worst for this. It's the most important detail for a video setup, and that's why video housings are shaped horizontally (more angle to work with) and usually have a lot of air inside.

Okkkk now it's clear. Thanks

Terrific project. Ho do you add the weights? Is it possible to add some legs for macro work without removing everything? Ho do you plan to mount the monitor, behind the housing? Thanks

A question, maybe a silly one. I was looking at the Nauticam N120 Canon Port Chart, specifically for the Canon EF 100 F2.8 macro. The table generally lists SMC/CMC and then (being FF) gives the working distances and magnifications for SMC-1 and 2. It seems like SMC-2 is much more powerful than SMC-1. However, for the CMCs that I use, it's the opposite: the CMC-2 is less powerful than the CMC-1. So, is it not possible to know the magnifications achievable with CMC-1 and 2 by looking at those for the SMC series? P.S. I'm using the EF 100 on a M43 system

I've had several GoPros and I've never had a problem. You probably got a faulty one. For your use case, just grab the best deal you find. DJI's frame distortions can be mitigated by using a smaller FOV.

Absolutely true. Unfortunately, for most "shilltubers," video autofocus (AF) demonstrations boil down to someone just moving back and forth, or in and out of the camera's frame on a tripod. This is one of the rare videos where a camera's AF is explained in detail for both photos and videos. And, as I mentioned, even for a very advanced camera like the A6700 (I read that its AF is the same as the A7R5), the AF sections are different.

Welcome aboard!

For all you blackwater die-hards out there, I stumbled upon a lecture by Linda Iannello for the Florida Oceanographic Society about this kind of diving in Florida. The lecture is over an hour long and it's a true encyclopedia on the subject. Besides photos of tons of species, all the techniques are explained. If you're having trouble sleeping at night, this is a fantastic remedy! 😁

Let's be clear: I'm not fighting against full-frame. My reasoning is purely about video, underwater video, not photography. If you're making professional videos, you don't need to print in A2 or A1 sizes. You need to deliver your work in standard resolutions, which today are 4K or 6K. 8K is still mostly for cropping in editing. Video resolution is tiny compared to photography. 4K: Around 8.3 Megapixels (UHD) or 8.8 Megapixels (DCI). 6K: Around 19-20 Megapixels (depending on the specific resolution). 8K: Around 33.2 Megapixels. These are ridiculous resolutions respect to average current photography needs. In fact, the opposite of photography happens. A video-oriented camera will have a sensor that's as close as possible to the final video resolution. My GH5 has a 20 MP sensor, which is a compromise between video and photos. The GH5S, which is specifically for video, only has a 10 MP sensor. The glorious Sony A7S III only has a 12 MP sensor! But today, almost all cameras are hybrids, meaning they also take photos. If you don't want to crop and lose the original format, manufacturers are forced to do real-time downscaling, which brings its own problems: computing power, overheating, and rolling shutter. Going back to our debate on full frame... The term "full-frame" comes from analog photography, For a long time, this format was the professional standard in photography, offering better image quality than smaller formats. With the start of the digital era, full-frame sensors were initially expensive to make, leading to the use of smaller sensors like APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, even in professional cameras. The "trend" of full-frame in video grew from digital photography technology meeting the increasing demands of video production, especially the desire for an affordable "cinematic look." The real turning point was the Canon 5D Mark II. In 2008, it showed that high-quality video could be made with relatively inexpensive equipment. This started a revolution, leading other manufacturers, especially Sony, to develop full-frame cameras with increasingly advanced video features. These cameras then became a common choice for many productions, from independent to semi-professional. It's important to differentiate between the history of traditional cinema and recent trends in digital video. The history of cinema was not made with "full-frame" in the sense of a 36x24mm sensor. The main formats were: Super 16mm (S16): A smaller format that was used for many famous films, valued for its versatility and unique look. Super 35mm (S35): This was the main format for most of cinema's history. The image area of 35mm film in cinema cameras was closer in size to an APS-C sensor or slightly larger, but much smaller than a full-frame sensor. Most of cinema's magic, from Hollywood to European films, was created using this format. Therefore, the "cinematic look" linked to full-frame in modern digital video is not the same as the historical cinematic look. The full-frame "trend" was fueled by marketing that promoted the idea that a larger sensor was always better. It offered real benefits in low-light performance and dynamic range, but more importantly, it made it easy to achieve a "strong bokeh". For many amateur videomakers, this became a sign of a "professional" and cinematic look, differentiating their work from amateur videos. Finally, it's worth noting that many RED cameras used in high-end productions like "blue chip" wildlife documentaries still use Super 35mm sensors. This is often preferred to maintain a greater depth of field when filming distant subjects. Lions and gazelles are far far away 😀 This shows that "bigger is not always better" for every specific use case in professional filmmaking.