Davide DB

Another "review" Quoting @bghazzal it's as if all camera reviews were made with the mode dial set to P or Auto. It's now clear to everyone that these reviews are solely targeted at 90% of the typical users in this market segment: users who want to quickly share their clips on social media or with friends without spending time editing or making any corrections. That's perfectly fine, but personally, I'd like this to be made clear in the reviews, right from the title. Moreover, as I’ve already mentioned, this way of testing them largely undermines the very meaning of a review, unless the title is: 'A vs B – Which of the two cameras has the best SOOC images?' It's a shame because these cameras are often used as crash cameras in high-budget Hollywood productions and even documentary. Of course, they are not set up in this way. So, if there were reviews showing what can be achieved by using the available settings, they would be really useful for everyone, from advanced enthusiasts to professionals. P.S. New Insta360 Ace Pro 2 has a 157° default FOV like the new DJI (155°). I'm afraid that behind a wet lens (AOI or INON) it will have the same problems of DJI... It has a UW mode which supposedly correct corners distortions bu we don't know what happens behind a wet lens.

I will preface this by saying that colors are personal taste but I agree with Ben, the clips shown so far of the new Insta360 and iPhone SOOC are ugly. Artifacts aside, the colors are improbable. I personally prefer colors that are desaturated and otherwise reflect what you see underwater, and don't tell me that underwater we see phosphorescent blue 🙂 Then it is also fine to veer to a creative, more cinematic color palette. But that doesn't seem to be the case. The part of the pseudo review of the new Insta360 Ace Pro 2 that I found most far-fetched is the clip of the turtle descending, shot against the light to show dynamic range. The surface of the water moved by the bubbles looks like real plastic. A sign of heavy image processing by the camera. Now, I understand that comparing these toys to real mirrorless cameras is an easy target but I don't like not look at things objectively. IMHO, we have two kinds of problems here: - These reviews are aimed at an audience that simply wants to press a button and then immediately share clips on social networks or friends. But at this point, in my opinion, anything goes. No point in being nitpick. - Until there is a real filmmaker who takes the trouble to work on settings and post production as one does for any underwater image, we will never understand the real potential of these little cameras. Final consideration: here we are on an underwater imaging forum, indeed The Forum! so here we are splitting hairs by definition 😉

Couldn't be a fault battery or did you try with another one already?

Hi Nando, the best option is to upload the file to YouTube. Just leave privacy options to "unlisted" 😉

Ok, I'm a M43 shooter so from Nauticam port chart I get: 14-42mm: Leica 45mm macro: So I would expect that the maximum working distance will increase somehow.

Nauticam site reports 457 USD

IIRC back and forth about one month. But if your only problem is the vacuum circuit I guess Nauticam USA/Backscatter should be able to make such a simple repair. At most it is a matter of replacing the small electronic circuit.

I saw a FB post of @pcremoneabout this new wet lens and it's strange nobody talk about it... https://www.nauticam.com/products/mid-range-focus-optimizer-1-mfo-1

No, I didn't try. Dome and virtual image math is against anamorphic 😞

Exactly. Completely useless

Last time I sent my GH5 housing to Nauticam for service, it was in that condition. Came back home as brand new and now is starting to resemble that one 😇

Modesty is my strength

This guy would make great use of it https://www.facebook.com/fredimiri.schaschl/videos/852943360375834

My lens 😍

Hi Paul Welcome aboard, we hope you'll enjoy the forum!

Yes of course, mine was a curiosity because for video a CMC-1 is really difficult to use and I saw this one has a longer working range.

Hi Mic, Welcome aboard!

I see that no one is responding, so I'll try to put my two cents in. I don't think it depends on the monitor which in theory should replicate what happens on the display (I write in theory because I read that Sony is quite complicated on the subject) but I think it is a “simple” camera setting. In my Panasonic GH5 there is a setting called “Constant preview” that changes the way the camera display behaves with respect to the exposure/shooting settings. This setting has impact especially when the camera is set to manual. Constant preview ON = you see the real exposure on the display Constant preview OFF = you display will have a good exposure/perfect image regardless of your exposure settings. Now, I guess that you have just to find where is this settings on your camera. One image is better than a thousand words:

The same guy who wrote the article with the comparison, published this video. it's a mistery which settings were used and usually they are more inclined to post on social media than explain things. I call them "TX No RX" Transmit but don't not receive https://www.facebook.com/share/r/YdYtV1MrrnUQjdkz/

Sorry to hear about that. I will temporarily pin this post here.

You don't need to add this kind of complication. Just weight everything submerged with a luggage scale. Gopro kit it's so small you could do everything at home.

Does it work with an M43 lens? Do SMC1 & 2 work with M43 lens? 😇

You are brave to discuss these things in a general forum. I appreciate your effort. Videos shot with the lens confirm the distortion at the corners. IMHO with a starting FOV of 155 degrees no wet lens will do. The Osmo Action 4/5 have a narrower "standard" FOV. Perhaps with this FOV the situation changes but we would need to know which FOV was used in all those terrible underwater video. They point out here that the 155 degrees is diagonal and the horizontal FOVs are quite different. https://forum.dji.com/thread-216036-1-1.html Here is a practical comparison. Between standard and wide there is almost no difference. Too bad. This action camera looked the most promising from an underwater point of view.

I don't get your question. There's no difference weighting objects individually or together. Salt and fresh water weight difference is about 2.5%

Caught up in work commitments, I didn't have a chance to respond to this beautiful post of yours that doesn't stop at camera manufacturers but opens the view to the postwar Japanese industry. Very interesting. I had been looking for other insights and found a long article written in Italian on a photography site and it echoes exactly your explanations. This article, too, details the workings of the Japanese industrial model (organized in Keiretsu (系列) pointing to it as a key to Japan's success in the photographic and also in the electronics post war industry. The authors of the article are paranoid about copyright. I post the link here: https://www.nocsensei.com/camera/storia/massimilianoterzi/il-modello-industriale-giapponese-del-dopoguerra-e-lindutria-fotografica/ What struck me most was a table taken from one of the many sources in the bibliography. Basically in the postwar period until the 1970s, the number of new models of German cameras could be counted on the fingers of one hand while the Japanese were flying. Worth mention another explanation on Reddit that I found interesting. Basically, in the postwar period the leading German companies found themselves on the “wrong” side of the wall and this dealt a death blow to that industry. How did Japan come to dominate the camera industry?