RomiK

the chimney?... again, it's a personal preference I get it but in my view there is an artistic expression - intentional distortions - and documentary and educational value. Fisheyes in geometric world is all about expression and this is why we see it mainly on skateboard pics etc above water - hence the reason no mfg is rushing mirrorless versions of these. Just the underwater world seems to be stuck in those in part for technical in part for artistic and in part for trend setters... Just my 2c

It's a personal preference for sure... For me I just don't understand why would anyone shoot wrecks intentionally distorted... To me this fisheye look on anything underwater is a bit of a farce.

I would probably ask Nauticam directly. Here you don't state enough information about your system... F or Z mount to begin with... the differentiator is the base unit and #1 #2 and #3 for FF eq. 90mm -120mm setups. Basically you need to measure the distance from the flat port glass to your lens in your setup and compare it with #1,2,3 options from the chart and lens combo and make decision. It will work, you just need to choose correct base unit.

Thanks! Really loved working with native optics 🤙

After 6 months dentist induced diving coma I was back in the water at Cape Verde this week and what a joy it was to use Sony 20-70 F4 in 180mm glass dome I brought with me. I could have chosen WWL-1B or test 8-15/2x in 140mm instead . But I was never to Atlantic, didn’t know if I would shoot big or small, wanted to take photo and video so I chose to bring this combo which I call the solution ‘for unexpected’ (I also brought 16-35 F4 PZ but didn’t use it) So to give you my take on your question - don’t sell your 14-30 and the dome just yet as it is the right tool for the some jobs. For example for Socorro’s mantas if you want both photos and videos. Fisheyes suck for video and WACPs and WWLs suck also as IBISes rely on lens focal length information which obviously get wrong by slapping these glorious adapted optics in front of native lenses. Also one thing to consider is that with 8-15 and TC and adapters in 140glass your rig buoyancy will change dramatically so you will need to compensate for this. The photos below I took with 20-70.

You're welcomed. Comp samples attached with annotation what is what. Details at 100%. As for 28-60 most reviews note the softness at 60 so my thinking is that it is what it is 🤷‍♂️ And real kicker is what to think of slapping €6500 FCP in front of 28-60 in long end 🙈. Then all of a sudden the €4500 or so for 8-15 TC2x begins to make sense for the quality overall 🤣

I would encourage you to reconsider. In real world there is no difference between TC and non TC performance (minuscule on charts) and the flexibility of 16-30mm zoom is awesome. In fact and you'd be surprised the main strength of the use of 8-15 vs WACP or WWL1 is its long end. At the short end the results are very comparable except for the angle of view and distortion (fisheye effect). And WACP has greater DOF at CFWA at comparable apertures. But at the long end 28-60 is quite soft and I could not believe what I saw after shooting test charts underwater. 8-15 at 30mm (both 140 and 180 domes) was a real treat compared to 28-60 WWL. (P.S. @Adventurer - milimeters really don't matter and you need to get wet to find out 😉) And then the money talk. The cost of it all. 1000 (lens used) + 500 (TC) + 500 (Metabones) + 650 (N100/120) + 800 (20+35extensions) + 1000 (the cheaper version of 140mm) + 300 (adapted zoom ring) and I will let you sum it up... Madness. Then 7.5k for FCP solution doesn't sound that bad 🙈😉 So from the other angle perhaps if one wants to tip toe into the world of fisheye and wants to spend close to 3000 for that maybe yes. But I think I bought for friend of mine an entire OMD OM-1 setup with excellent Oly 8mm1.8 and 140mm dome for that amount.

All good points save for one I would disagree with. You absolutely have to get the system wet (not yourself necessarily 🙂 - I shoot my pictures laying on edge of my home pool shooting down 😉) in order to test as there are things coming to play like refraction and virtual image. The cutting mat is the best water resistant test bed I have found :-). I did try to play with Petzval surface phenomenon but didn't have that much patience to have meaningful result in case you'd like to really dive in 😁. Cheers

These were just a few of tests of different configurations I made... gave you those which I thought would be the most polarized in order to deliver the point - millimeters really don't matter, there are other things in play and we only need to be in a ballpark figure. Like 30mm vs 35mm extension? No real difference. Like 180mm sharper (minus the CA) than 140mm with Sony TC in ideal position? OMG the 180mm was supposed to be awful wasn't it? And Kenko was even worse🙈 than Sony. But you would have to spend time shooting charts underwater to understand this. Unfortunately the Internet is full of theories with "demonstrative" pictures from Raja Ampat 😂 which tend to muddy the waters somewhat. So I had to make my own tests. Good luck and I am looking forward to your UW test charts and conclusions 🙂

I'd say it's either-or scenario. You'd need different port extension for each of them I'd say the approach might be less scientific - basically push the lens back as far as not to get vignette at widest setting. The dome size is far more important than some millimeters in positioning. Down below left is 140mm glass dome with TC2x and lens at 8mm (=16mm) and correct position and right is 180mm dome with lens at 15mm (no TC) so far back that it already vignetted. Still the CA (see the blue lines) is so much more pronounced even though the right image scenario is sharper even in corners (but there is another variable like the lens was at 15mm and not 8mm and it didn't have TC on it). I have no real life samples as to what effect this extreme CA would have on the real image underwater.

I like the camera, the sound, the editing. I don't like the colors. It seems like desaturated and hue shifted a bit unnatural even where video lights were used. I know it's extremely difficult to unify color tone throughout the movie but I just don't like the look of this. Which camera and software?

Ambient video with CWB for sure, sharks hate video lights and they don't come close anyway, but if you want to get that wall picture you've got to use strobes. Plus hammers don't mind the strobes as much as they mind divers 🙂. The advice is to stay away from other divers, don't breath when one is coming and then pop and shoot. The ambush!🤣

With experiences you have don't worry about Galapagos. Just keep the same habits you already have under your skin, nothing worse than complicate things with new stuff and then miss that whale shark swimming by over at Darwin arch... The most important thing will be your gloves and familiarity operating your rig with them. You will use your gloves to hold on to rocks at the current situations, tie downs are not being used at Galapagos as often you are perpendicular to the current so they aren't practical like at channel Maldives dives for example. Darwin and Wolf are all rocks no corrals so the way it goes is if there is bigger current you wedge yourself in between rocks, free up your hands and start operating the camera. My rig is same as yours and at times I had to minimize its profile and drag it behind me but that's nothing extraordinary. Basically all dives were one handed where my right hand never let camera go and left was used to manipulate my body. And then when wedged I was ready to ambush hammerheads 😂. The currents over there are no mask rippers, yes they may be stronger sometimes but no mask rippers... Darwin and Wolf are simple but the iguanas dive over at Fernandina could be a real washing machine so watch out 🤣 . Enjoy that beautiful place!

Thanks for heads up. In the meantime I bought Metabones V which does accept Sony TC 2x which I already had and is shorter than Kenko (40mm vs 27mm). Then I had to decide on the zoom ring. The problem in adapting Nauticams Kenko version is that it utilizes focus knob on the 100-120 adapter which then creates problem when quickly removing camera from housing for battery change and pictures review. So I utilized my existing Nauticam’s zoom ring for 20-70 and adapted it for now using 75mm waste piping system as shown on my prototype pictures. Works flawlessly, the union is rock solid and so I can pull out the camera quickly in between the dives. Later on I will design some kind of 3D printed extension for this solution as I want Nauticams aluminium barrel with cogs and not plastic 3D printed one. I am ordering 140mm dome as it is clear to me that due to curvature I would always have CA problem with 180mm dome. All in all I am beginning to think that I am building nice, travel friendly and versatile system around Sony N100 N100/120 + 20mm + 180mm for 16-35 PZ F4 N100/120 + 35mm + 180mm for 20-70 F4 N100/120 + 20mm + 35mm + 140mm for 8-15 F4 adapted as 16-30 F8 Fisheye (think travel friendly FCP1 🙂 N100 + macro port for 90mm and EMWL WWL1 will probably go. I will wait for 140mm to arrive and publish some tests and comparisons afterwards. Cheers.

Thanks for the reaction, I've spent quite some time reading yours and @DreiFish posts recently 🥵. I have both Sony and Kenko 2x - unfortunately neither Tokina or MC11 accept Sony 2x so I couldn't compare. I am not impressed with Sony 2x neither with 70-200 F4 GII or 200-600 so I think they will be same, the performance penalty is there but unless zoomed in 300% on 50Mp file one can't really notice it seems. I am more concerned with CA when using 180mm dome and would like to see uncorrected 140mm samples with contrast subjects. I didn't see any CA with 140mm dome but I did see CA with 17inch dome at @DreiFish thread which made me wonder... I wonder whether I could get satisfactory performance from 180mm dome and 8-15 w/2x to have one dome when traveling. I am quite OK with corner sharpness and micro contrast which in my opinion quite a bit surpasses that of WWL1 28-60 combo but that CA makes me wonder.