Davide DB

I have only seen it working in a studio, which means in perfectly controlled conditions. In the water, color absorption changes a lot with distance, and the orientation towards the sun changes much more than in the air. A good white balance is more than enough. The goal is to have colors that are pleasant rather than faithful

Welcome Aboard!

First we must wait for the duels to the death to finish 😁

It seems that in these last years there are more strobes than cameras. And many snoots too!!! https://www.facebook.com/reel/856799257136321

Yes of course. To give you some perspective, look at an 'old' Lumix GH5. Back in 2017, it was already recording 4K (8.3MP) at 400Mbps (H.264). Even if we account for H.265 GoPro being twice as efficient, that GH5 was effectively putting 200Mbps worth of detail into 8.3MP. A Sony A7SIII/FX3 @4K records at 280Mbps! By comparison, the GoPro 12 is trying to squeeze 24.7MP (8:7 mode) into 120Mbps. Mathematically, the GoPro is asking the encoder to do much more 'heavy lifting' per pixel than a 10-year-old pro camera. High resolution is great, but without a proportional increase in bitrate, you're just getting more pixels, not better pixels.

Hi Giacomo, I see your point about the horizontal resolution being 5.3K in both cases, but mathematically, the 'No quality loss' claim doesn't hold up once you look at the total pixel count the encoder has to process within the same 120 Mbps limit. Here is why 16:9 Native is technically superior to 8:7 cropped to 16:9. The Math of the Canvas: 5.3K 16:9 Native: about 15.8 Million pixels (5312 x 2988). 5.3K 8:7 Full Sensor: about 24.7 Million pixels (5312 x 4648). When you record in 8:7, the camera is dedicating a huge chunk of those 120 Mbps to the top and bottom areas of the senso. That are areas you are going to crop away anyway. In 16:9 Native, the encoder doesn't 'see' those extra pixels, so it can spend the entire 120Mbps budget only on the 16:9 frame Finally, in the 16:9 Native file, each pixel in your final frame has roughly 56% more data allocated to it compared to the same area inside an 8:7 file. You aren't wasting bitrate on pixels you're just going to delete in post! On a lighter note: It's like buying a pizza for 3 people (8:7) instead of 2 (16:9), while using the exact same amount of dough. The slices will inevitably be thinner! 🍕 P.S. My reference to 'Ludicrous Speed' was just a quote from Spaceballs movie (Velocità smodata - Balle Spaziali) 😁

New Sony FE 100 mm F2.8 Macro GM OSS lens focus gear anyone? 😈

Custom knobs and custom caps added!

Amazing work indeed! I look forward to read the entire story on a new thread or even an article. Thanks for sharing

Please, if you didn't like the tests that were done: Stick to the facts and don't get personal. Raise your doubts politely in the specific thread. The goal is to have a constructive exchange of ideas, so let's keep the discussion professional and helpful for everyone.

It's not a strange thing. It's math. I'm splitting hairs here but saying there is "no quality loss" just because the bitrate is the same is a common misconception. Here is the math: 4K (16:9) = about 8.3 Million pixels per frame. 5.3K (8:7) = about 24.7 Million pixels per frame. While the bitrate is capped at 120Mbps (*) for both, the 5.3K 8:7 mode has to manage nearly 3x more pixels than 4K. Think of bitrate as your "data budget." In 4K, each pixel gets a larger slice of that 120Mbps pie. In 5.3K 8:7, you are spreading that same amount of data much thinner across a much larger canvas. Does this mean 5.3K 8:7 is "bad"? Not at all. Its strength isn't pure image fidelity, but versatility: You can crop a 9:16 vertical for TikTok and a 16:9 for YouTube from the same clip without losing vertical resolution. Stabilization: It gives HyperSmooth more sensor "real estate" to work with, resulting in better stabilization with less aggressive cropping. (*) Even using the 190Mbps ludicrous speed of Gopro labs FW, the math doesn't change

I'll add some other thoughts: Set HDMI Output Res to 1080p (instead of Auto). You tried this already. Disable HDMI Rec Control in the HDMI connection menu. The GH7 sends a digital "trigger" signal through the HDMI cable to tell an external recorder to start. A simple SmallHD doesn't know what to do with this command and often glitches or loses the sync. ensure HDMI Info Display (Rec) is set to ON. Try a different cable.

Nope. I can 100% confirm you that the external monitor via HDMi works flawlessly with GH6 and GH7. There is something else at play there. If you find a pc monitor or a laptop, you can test your GH7 HDMI out and your SmallHD monitor alone

No GH7 here but a long time Pana user. Did you enable the HDMI output downscaling? By default my GH5 output on HDMI the same resolution and framerate I'm recording to but not all monitors accept UHD or 4K signal. And most of them accept max 4K@30p. My GH5 HDMI is set to 1080p regardless of my recording resolution. If you have a normal desktop pc monitor or a TV, just try your camera on them, possibly with another normal HDMI cable.

Added to our DIYpedia Thanks

Added to our DIYpedia

Hi Richard! I remember you very well from WetPixel. Welcome to your new home!!! I hope to see some of your work soon and start some very interesting technical discussions! Ciao

Great job, beautiful video and so many species captured! Tell us more about the gear you used. Question: since the video is just music and images, wouldn't it be better to have several shorter videos instead of one single long-form piece? Thanks for sharing!

Hi Kiliii, Welcome onboard! We hope you will enjoy the forum. Ciao

DOOMSDAY DEVICE!!!

It must be a pleasure diving and, while on the boat, handling this configuration 😁

Looking forward to see some test Macroview Vs MFO-3! And don't forget the price!

To be fair and look at both sides of the coin, I think it’s important to mention the study by Gallagher & Hammerschlag (2011). Their research highlights the 'Conservation Shield' provided by the shark diving industry, showing that a single reef shark in the Bahamas is worth about $250,000 USD in tourism revenue over its lifetime, compared to just $50-$100 USD if killed for its fins. This economic reality was a massive win for conservation. It gave governments a concrete reason to create Shark Sanctuaries and protect these animals from overfishing. The core argument was simple: a shark with slightly altered behavior is still much better off than a dead shark. However, while I agree with the importance of that study, we have to remember it was published in 2011. Now, in 2026, the context has shifted significantly. Back then, the "economic shield" was a desperate and necessary tool to stop the immediate slaughter of sharks. It worked, and many populations stabilized as a result. But after 15 years, we have to ask ourselves: are we still doing this for conservation, or has it just become a mature, high-profit business? At what point does 'saving the sharks' stop being a valid excuse for turning a wild ecosystem into a controlled photo studio? In 2026, we have better technology, better-managed Marine Protected Areas, and many examples of 'Blue Tourism' that don't rely on feeding to be successful. The conservation argument was a vital starting point, but it shouldn't be a permanent license to ignore anthropogenic impact indefinitely. It’s a tough balance, but I believe it's time to move past 15-year-old justifications and aim for a more ethical interaction with these apex predators.

Thanks for the feedback. I want to clarify that I’m not a marine biologist, but after seeing some comments, I did some research on Google Scholar to see what the peer-reviewed data actually says. It’s true that the scientific community isn’t unanimous, and the debate is quite complex. On one hand, some studies suggest that the impact might be limited. For example: Hammerschlag et al. (2012) found that despite frequent feeding at Tiger Beach (Bahamas), tiger sharks still maintain their long-distance migratory patterns. Gallagher & Hammerschlag (2011) argue that the economic value of shark tourism provides a vital 'conservation shield' against the much greater threat of overfishing. On the other hand, there is significant evidence of localized behavioral changes: Vertical Shift in Bull Sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) - Fiji: Research by Brunnschweiler and Barnett (2010) showed that these sharks completely changed their vertical distribution and space use to match feeding schedules. Social Aggression in Grey Reef Sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) - Australia: Fitzpatrick et al. (2011) documented increased intra-specific aggression and injuries due to the 'conditioned response' triggered by feeding. Health Concerns: Some studies (like those in Oslob regarding Whale Sharks) show that a human-provided diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies compared to their natural, more varied diet. Ultimately, while science may not have proven catastrophic long-term damage to entire populations yet, from an ethological standpoint, altering the routine of an apex predator is rarely 'zero cost.' To me, the real question isn't just whether the shark survives, but whether it’s right to turn a wild animal into a conditioned one for our own entertainment and photography. I believe we should base our community's ethics on both our passion and this kind of scientific precaution.

Like underwater, more or less 😛